Daylight Atheism > Open Thread: The Problem of Evil

Open Thread: The Problem of Evil

I'm creating a thread to address this comment by Mollie:

I've only been familiar with your site for a few days, so I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss what I'm about to say. If not, please direct me to a more appropriate place.

My husband thinks it's a bad idea to debate with you guys because we come from two totally different backgrounds of thought- I believe that God exists and that the Bible is totally true and you do not. Therefore, you will not convice me of anything and I will not convice you of anything.

Nevertheless, I can't help but ask the following questions- I don't really want to get in a huge discussion over this either, but we'll see what happens. In your essay above, you give the following:

Assumption (1): God exists.
Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing.
Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful.
Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving.
Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God.

How did you come to the conclusion that God only has these three qualities, or that these three are the ultimate? I can think of his holiness and justice that would slightly alter the equation.

I do not say this to be offensive, but is seems like you have built up 'your idea' of what God is or who He should be and then proved how he cannot be (rather than taking all he has revealed Himself to be in the Bible) .

Again- this is where the fundamental differences come into play. I believe that God HAS revealed himself in the Bible, so if you don't take the Bible at face value- as it says it is- the Word of God, then it will be hard for me to 'argue' anything with you. I have come to the understanding that without God telling us about himself, through the Bible, we really wouldn't be able to know much about him. So again, I ask, since you don't believe in the Bible- where do you get your idea of what the 'perfect God' should be like?

141 Comments

Here's my response:

I believe that God exists and that the Bible is totally true and you do not. Therefore, you will not convice me of anything and I will not convice you of anything.

On the contrary: if we both agree on the principle that we should believe only what the evidence indicates is true, then we can convince each other by appealing to facts which anyone can examine. You seem to be assuming that each party in the debate starts with assumptions that cannot be moved, but the fact is that atheists do not take God's nonexistence as a first principle; we deduce it from other evidence available to us. I've written an essay that explains exactly what it would take to change an atheist's mind.

I realize that some believers reject this idea and instead hold that their personal faith trumps any evidence or fact presented to them, and if you're one of those people, then no, I probably won't convince you of anything. But please don't assume that everyone else feels the same way.

How did you come to the conclusion that God only has these three qualities, or that these three are the ultimate?

No one ever said that these were the only qualities God possesses, but they are the only relevant qualities for addressing this problem. If you've read the essay you draw this quote from, then you know that I spend considerable time addressing proposed solutions and argue that the consideration of other qualities (i.e., justice) does not alter the conclusion at all.

I believe that God HAS revealed himself in the Bible, so if you don't take the Bible at face value- as it says it is- the Word of God, then it will be hard for me to 'argue' anything with you.

If you find it impossible to argue with someone who does not already believe that everything in the Bible is true, then I agree, you're not going to make much headway here. Atheists generally prefer to be presented with independently verifiable facts, not the written words of some ancient anonymous author which we're told we should accept uncritically.

So again, I ask, since you don't believe in the Bible- where do you get your idea of what the 'perfect God' should be like?

I would think this is obvious: this is the idea of God held by the vast majority of theists in the world today. That is the idea I wish to argue against, so I'm starting from the believers' own idea of God, taking it as true for the sake of argument, and showing how that idea of God with those specific properties leads to an irresolvable conflict.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | June 9, 2007, 1:45 pm

"I believe that God exists and that the Bible is totally true and you do not. Therefore, you will not convice me of anything and I will not convice you of anything."

Of all the tendencies of the religious, it is this one, this immunization against the duty to persuade or be persuaded on the basis of the evidence and arguments presented, that I find the most irritating. Sam Harris is spot on when he says faith is a conversation stopper. Of course we disagree; that's why we're having the debate in the first place. It's an enormous non sequitur to say from that that neither of us can be convinced, though.

I find it ironic that the faithful, while claiming to possess the Ultimate Truth about the nature of everything, simultaneously will act and speak as though "truth" was just something one arbitrarily chose as one might pick an entree off a menu, rather than something we achieve knowledge of by applying reason and looking at the evidence.

"How did you come to the conclusion that God only has these three qualities, or that these three are the ultimate?"

Again a non sequitur. The assumptions don't say those are the only attributes of God, merely that they are among them. If Mollie thinks other attributes of God "alter the equation," she should attempt a theodicy.

"I do not say this to be offensive, but is seems like you have built up 'your idea' of what God is or who He should be and then proved how he cannot be (rather than taking all he has revealed Himself to be in the Bible)."

The point of the argument from evil is to show that the existence of a given god--the concept for which is provided by billions of theists--doesn't quite square with the state of the world. Is Mollie's God not all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving? If not, then the argument (or at least this form) doesn't apply to her deity; but that doesn't lessen its effectiveness against the theisms of many, many other people. If, on the other hand, Mollie's God does have these three qualities, she should explain in a more thorough fashion why the argument fails to show that he probably does not exist, rather than alluding to some mysterious "other qualities."

Comment by: OhioAtheist | June 9, 2007, 2:00 pm

if we both agree on the principle that we should believe only what the evidence indicates is true, then we can convince each other by appealing to facts which anyone can examine. You seem to be assuming that each party in the debate starts with assumptions that cannot be moved...

I recently finished a book by Edward Schiappa called "Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning" which was not as philosophical as I hoped but it contained several interesting cases.

In one of them there was a debate over whether 7 photos from an exhibit shoulf be considered obscene or not - meaning should they be removed and the curator fined (the Mapplethorpe case).

Although boht sides had the same definition of obscene aka the "Miller test". The problem was whether theese particular photos fit under this definition or not.

In some ways the situation is same here: you say "I will belive anything if sufficent evidence is provided" and expect others to do the same, and they even might do that. But the problem arises with the question "is this particual piece of evidence sufficent or not".

So you might agree on one thing with the theists and they with you but you'll surely will find another thing to disagree on.
:)

Comment by: mcv | June 9, 2007, 2:12 pm

My favorite part, and I did have a favorite part, is when they said that god might have perfect justice. For instance, a thousand generations ago a woman might be tricked into doing something, and it would be perfect justice to condemn all her children and all of their children, into perpetuity, to eternal suffering. That sounds fair, right? ;)

However, the real flaw in her argument is that while her god might be perfectly just or whatever it is also a common claim that the Xtian god is perfectly good and benevolent. So, no, it doesn't alter the proposition one whit if the Xtian god is also perfectly just (not to mention the broader questions of the relationship between, say, justice and mercy).

But it is true when a person is going to say that the Bible is the perfect word of god then discussion becomes impossible. Argument is rather easy, tho', hehe. But when either party in a discussion does not admit for the possibility of change, generally the discussion is pointless. We can only hope she doesn't take that too seriously. ;)

Comment by: Chris Bradley | June 9, 2007, 2:25 pm

Why did Mollie bother posting at all when she completely believes in the inerrancy of the Bible? Perhaps because in her brain (as opposed to her heart), she knows that the Bible isn't inerrant. Or perhaps she's indulging in the need to convert us from atheism. Either way, I have no idea what to say to her. She can express her belief in the infallibility of the contradictory information in the Bible, and I can say, "Well, I've read that crazy book many times, and I don't view it as infallible." There isn't any point. Since there isn't a God, how can we discuss God's qualities?

Comment by: Jude | June 9, 2007, 2:52 pm

Argueing with a Christian is one of the things that give me a warm, fuzzy feeling. Mainly because, in nearly every 'discussion, I've invited the near-crying person to smack me, because I could tell they wanted to. It runs deep, this 'faith'. It's hard to be told the apparent truth, when all they know is the 'fact' that God exists, and we're all going through a test.

To which I equate that 'test' to being a rat in a maze. EbonMusings was a good contributor to me arguement points, which have yet to be fudged by the faithful.

Mollie seems to be covering her ears and saying "Lalalala I can't hear you" when it comes to the point EB put up. Truth be told, I'm surprised we atheist 'blights on humanity' haven't been stamped out yet because of our views. Especially in the US, which is dominated by the Christian 'minority' which consists of 80% of the country.

Comment by: Mobius 118 | June 9, 2007, 3:15 pm

If Mollie really believes that the bible is "totally true" -- her words, remember -- then I'm still waiting for her response to my challenge. In fact, I think anyone who believes in the literal inerrancy of the new testament ought to be required to drink a nice tall glass of poison every morning to prove it. I am, I realize, widely considered to be overly cynical, but I suspect there would shortly be a shortage of believers of this type:

Chuang Tzu went to see Duke Ai of Lu. Duke Ai said, "We have a great many Confucians here in the state of Lu, but there seem to be very few men who study your methods, Sir!"

"There are few Confucians in the state of Lu!" said Cuang Tzu.

"But the whole state of Lu is dressed in Confucian garb!" said Duke Ai. "How can you say they are few?"

"I have heard," said Chuang Tzu, "that the Confucians wear round caps on their heads to show that they understand the cycles of heaven, that they walk about in suare shoes to show that they understand the shape of the earth, and that they tie ornaments in the shape of a broken disc at their girdles in order to show that, when the time comes for decisive action, they must 'make the break.' But a gentleman may embrace a doctrine without necessarily wearing the garb that goes with it, and he may wear the garb without necessarily comprehending the doctrine. If Your Grace does not believe this is so, then why not try issuing an order to the state proclaiming: 'All those who wear the garb without practicing the doctrine that goes with it will be sentenced to death!'"

"Duke Ai did in fact issue such an order, and within five days there was no one in the state of Lu who dared wear Confucian garb. Only one old man came in Confucian dress and stood in front of the duke's gate. The duke at once summoned him and questioned him on affairs of state and, though the discussion took a thousand turnings and ten thousand shifts, the old man was never at a loss for words. Chuang Tzu said, "In the whole state of Lu, then, there is only one man who is a real COnfucian. How can you say there are a great many of them?"

(From The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu translated by Burton Watson, published by Columbia University Press.)

Comment by: The Vicar | June 9, 2007, 3:33 pm

Again- this is where the fundamental differences come into play. I believe that God HAS revealed himself in the Bible, so if you don't take the Bible at face value- as it says it is- the Word of God, then it will be hard for me to 'argue' anything with you. . . So again, I ask, since you don't believe in the Bible- where do you get your idea of what the 'perfect God' should be like?

There are many atheist arguments that take their initial ideas (such as that of a 'perfect God' as described) from the statements of believers themselves and go on to show that such beliefs are logically inconsistent. The "problem of evil" is an example, and shows that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God does not seem to be consistent with the world as we observe it. Similarly, catalogues of Biblical inconsistencies show that the Bible cannot be literally true in every word. Such arguments are of course only effective against the specific beliefs that they are aimed at; if you yourself think that God is not always benevolent, for example, then the problem of evil does not necessarily apply to you. On the other hand, if you think that God is just, other problems might apply instead!

Comment by: Lynet | June 9, 2007, 4:06 pm

Ok- thanks for your answers. I appreciate those of you who are courteous in your answers. I am having trouble catching up with the threads I'm posting on. Again, I'm new here, so please be patient. :)

Comment by: Mollie | June 9, 2007, 4:31 pm

Mollie, your answer is a philosophical one. God must have the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence to be god. To be worthy of worship, hemust be qualitatively different from every other being in existence. It is not enough that he be quantitatively different, i.e. have more power, or he would just be "the great Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Sky" as I like to say, and you don't think you should worship someone because they are stronger than you, do you? That's were atheists get the qualities they ascribe to god, and the logic is pretty unassailable.

As for the god of the Bible, well he IS simply a human with magic powers, so honestly I don't find him too worthy of worship. Then again, I don't think he (or any god) exists, obviously.

Comment by: Ric | June 9, 2007, 6:53 pm

My husband thinks it's a bad idea to debate with you guys because we come from two totally different backgrounds of thought- I believe that God exists and that the Bible is totally true and you do not. Therefore, you will not convice me of anything and I will not convice you of anything.

Well, that's that then.

Comment by: PeterWR | June 9, 2007, 6:56 pm

I guess what is postulated is not who or what God is but what God must be to be considered God. I myself don't think God needs to be perfect. But here is my axioms of what a god must be.

1) Creator of the Universe (God made the world)
2) Eternal (God is still here)
3) Sentient (God is a self-aware being, not merely some force which all things flow from)
4) Personal (This isn't necessary, but is if we have any reason to care about God and God care about us)

That's what God must at a minimum be IMO. Is the God of the Bible atleast this, I would say so. The other stuff that is often included (all-knowing, all-powerful, fully just, etc) does seem to come along with the idea of God. From the omniscient idea of course the problem of evil is nearly impossible to combat. Although, that depends on what you consider evil. I think there are two general forms of evil. First, is evil perpetrated by man, with intent to do wrong. The other is suffering. Some consider suffering recieved, justice rather than evil. But this last point is one of the most contradictory parts of the Bible and most religions. Providing a reason for suffering when there really isn't a moral reason.

Comment by: CalUWxBill | June 9, 2007, 7:20 pm

...but it's 1:00am here, and I've a bit of the divil in me, so here goes.

How did you come to the conclusion that God only has these three qualities, or that these three are the ultimate? I can think of his holiness and justice that would slightly alter the equation.

These supposed qualities of God are the ones posited by theists, not atheists - and they've been accepted as the core qualities of God for centuries. Atheists simply use them as the given starting points for debate (not that there's much of a debate to be had).

One of the reasons these qualities were chosen is that they distill the essence of all God's other qualities into the most concise possible form. So to answer your comment quoted above, holiness and justice would be part of God's all-powerfulness and perfectly-lovingness, so they wouldn't need to be listed separately. Ditto for all God's other positive qualities. Presumably things like capriciousness, psychopathy and vengefulness could be included under all-powerfulness too since, if he's all-powerful, he doesn't need to justify his behaviour to the likes of you and me (well, to you at any rate. As I don't accept that he even exists, I don't give a kipper's dick whether he supposedly justifies his behaviour or not).

As for what he has revealed himself to be in the bible, I suggest you read it. You obviously haven't, except perhaps for the bits that confirm your prejudices.

Comment by: PeterWR | June 9, 2007, 7:22 pm

Hi mollie,

My husband thinks it's a bad idea to debate with you guys because we come from two totally different backgrounds of thought- I believe that God exists and that the Bible is totally true and you do not. Therefore, you will not convice me of anything and I will not convice you of anything.

Coming here to "debate" has its merits and can be fun, but may I also recommend that just coming here to discuss is very mind-expanding and enlightening as well. I daresay I have learned more about God here than I have in many church services. Just remember that if God is real, nothing anyone here says can change that, and if God is not real, nothing anyone says in church will change it either. You just have to figure out what makes sense to you.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 9, 2007, 8:13 pm

For the group,

If any of you think that God must be a certain thing in order to be worthy of worship, why do you feel that way. For example, there are some, theist and otherwise, who say that unless God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly loving, he is not worthy of worship. I think that I would agree without exception to the all-loving part, but I am not sure why omniscience and omnipotence would necessarily be prerequisites to worship of God.

Let us suppose that God is not *all* powerful, but is the most powerful thing in the universe. I do not see why the inability to do certain things would make him unworthy of worship, especially if he is all-loving.

I guess the reason I see it this way is because I see the relationship that I believe I have with God as one of love; like a child for parent. Even if God cannot do certain things, that does not change the fact that I love him.

At this point, I am certain that some of you are dying to lay into me about "loving" something which I cannot see, hear, etc... Well, if you must, so be it, and I will do my best to explain it to you, but it will severely derail the thread....

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 9, 2007, 8:21 pm

PeterWr, Your suggestion that Mollie actually read the bible (and by extension, other Bible-based theists) is superb! The single biggest biggest factor in my successful release from christian indoctrination/brainwashing was for me to reread the bible without the requisite blinders (ask god for faith and he will reveal himself to you thru diligent bible study). Reading the bible with the presumptions that god is omni benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, while trying to reconcile that concept with what one finds written there allows one to see how totally absurd the whole thing is!

TheMightyThor (note to Ebonmuse: I've commented once before using my full actual name and noticed after submission that others used internet names--so in the future I will write as TheMightyThor)

Comment by: TheMightyThor | June 9, 2007, 9:03 pm

TheMightyThor,

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but....well.....ah....no one around here believes in you. It's not just you, though, so don't feel bad. It's all Gods. You see, this is an *atheist* website, so it may be better if you didn't post here. I don't want you to get your feelings hurt, then things would get messy what with you slinging your colossal hammer to and fro and hurling lightning bolts wantonly at bystanders. For your convenience, I have provided a link to a Norse God discussion group. You will probably feel more at home there.

Cheers and may you...drink lots of...mead?

Matt R.

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/archive/index.php/t-12391

Comment by: Matt R | June 9, 2007, 9:21 pm

CalUWxBill,

You list four characteristics for a god. They look fine, but you don't tackle the question of whether the god is worthy of worship. If the god is merely powerful and personal, why would we worship it? Do you not care whether this god is moral or just? You've talked about power sufficient to create the universe, but surely you would like the god to have some power and influence in this universe.

When you break it down, if the god is not omnipotent (or at least very powerful) then why worship it? If the god is not benevolent and allows or perpetuates suffering, then the god would be a monster. Would you worship such a thing?

Some consider suffering recieved, justice rather than evil.

Except innocent people and children suffer while guilty adults lead luxurious lives. Justice sounds like a nice justification, but it doesn't mesh with reality.

Comment by: Adrian | June 9, 2007, 9:46 pm

I've already had a conversation very similar to this, viewable here (I'm Azkyroth on SHS and most other communities), and I think pretty much everything I said there applies (though the claim that arguments about fundamentalist Christians that don't assume the truth of the Bible as a first principle are "straw men" is hopefully unique O.o). I'll try to put something together for this later on, though...

Comment by: Alex Weaver | June 9, 2007, 9:55 pm

Ebonmuse:

I would like to read more on what you think about good/evil and the standard you follow (i.e. how do you decide what is something good or something bad?). I think I've read that you do believe in morals. Do you have an essay or thread about it somewhere? Thanks.

Comment by: Mollie | June 9, 2007, 10:22 pm

Hi Mollie,
I'm not Ebonmuse, but his writings on the topic can be found here.

Comment by: Bechamel | June 9, 2007, 10:58 pm

Mollie,

Ebonmuse's essay on morality is here. Enjoy.

As for whether God has to be omnipotent in order to worthy of worship, I'd say no -- moral perfection, for instance, is at the very least worthy of large amounts of respect and love. The trouble, for me, comes from ascertaining firstly that there is a God and secondly what exactly God might be like.

Comment by: Lynet | June 9, 2007, 11:02 pm

Adrian,

I only listed a minimum requirement I would expect a god to be, to be considered God from an evidence standpoint. As far as my part about suffering, I think I brought that up in favor of the argument from the problem of evil. Such sufferings cannot be explained away by a just god. As far as worship is concerned. I've never really understood the idea. Surely those who help me in times of need, who sustain my life deserve praise. But, service is not due to God, it is due to those in need. I can't see how God needs or even prefers exhaltations. If God does take care of the needy and downtrodden then thanks be to God. But, not much evidence of that on my end.

Comment by: CalUWxBill | June 9, 2007, 11:11 pm

I will be as courteous as possible. As a former southern pentacostal church of god member who had no qualms about condemning women who wore pants to hell for being of the world and not of god, I can honestly say that to take the bible literally is impossible for any rational person.

Evil exists in the world. A god who created a world in which evil exists is not a benevolent god. If he were benevolent, he would have chosen another way to lead us to wherever it is that we are supposed to be heading.

Evil exists in the world. Evil that is completely explained by natural science and human psychology.

I don't see how you can deny these statements. I am just ashamed that I endorsed a backwards, patriarchal, and primitive religion with such zeal for most of my adolescence. I am glad that I can think clearly now, without feeling the need to blindly believe the words of ancient sheep farmers. Perhaps I believed because this was droned into my head week after week, day after day, tent revival after tent revival... but all that is over and I am truly free to see the falsehoods for what they are.

I hope that you will at least understand the insult that you just gave atheists by questioning if we believe in morals. Morality is not related to theism or atheism as current world conditions obviously demonstrate.

If faith and belief satisfy the needs for you and your life, then so be it. I am all for people finding the most happiness and joy that is possible in this life. For me, that is by accepting the truth and walking away from someone else's ancient fantasies. I don't endorse animal and blood sacrifice much less a human's. If that is the best that the creator of the universe can come up with... err... well...

Let's think about this for a second. This God who created all of the galaxies in the universe and all of the quarks that make up the ultra small nucleons in an atom---This God who understood particle/wave duality and the intricate calculations of string theory---This God wanted to be worshipped by someone thrusting a dagger into a baby sheep and having its entrails and blood flow over its altar. Did this God exist? or was this God fabricated by the men of that age who had no other knowledge than of knives and sheep? Which is more likely?

Comment by: Jeff T. | June 10, 2007, 12:39 am

Matt, you confuse love with worship. You can love your parents, but to worship something in the religious sense, rather than the every day sense of saying to your main squeeze, "baby I worship you," requires an entity that is different from you and me-- qualitatively different. Or do you worship things just because they are stronger and more powerful than you?

Comment by: Ric | June 10, 2007, 8:18 am

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but….well…..ah….no one around here believes in you. It's not just you, though, so don't feel bad. It's all Gods. You see, this is an *atheist* website, so it may be better if you didn't post here. I don't want you to get your feelings hurt, then things would get messy what with you slinging your colossal hammer to and fro and hurling lightning bolts wantonly at bystanders. For your convenience, I have provided a link to a Norse God discussion group. You will probably feel more at home there.

LOL, Matt. :) But hey - TheMightyThor is welcome to post here just like everyone else. If he can prove to us that he exists, I'd be happy to believe in him. (Although my building has a lightning rod, which may make it harder for him.)

Mollie - Regarding your question on morality, some commenters have pointed you to my essay "The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinite Stick", which is a good start. I'd also recommend my post series "The Roots of Morality" here at Daylight Atheism that further addresses the topic.

As an aside, Mollie, I'm grateful that you're interested in finding out what I think about morality, rather than asserting that atheists by definition have no morals (as a depressingly large number of proselytizers do). I appreciate your open-mindedness - please don't hesitate to ask if you have any further questions I can answer.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | June 10, 2007, 9:41 am

Mollie,

You say: "God HAS revealed himself in the Bible, so if you don't take the Bible at face value- as it says it is- the Word of God"

Not all Christians believe precisely that about the Bible. Some think that God inspired some men to write. Indeed, books of the Bible are titled with 'book of so-and-so' or 'according to so-and-so'. What you have is a combination of some quotes attributed to God and the writing of the human narrators. Most of it consists of the latter.

Re morality:

One of the most basic principles of morality is that a punishment should fit the crime. This requires a hierarchy of values whereby some things are more important than others, and some actions are considered more important, morally, than others. For example, murder is worse than verbal insult. In murder someone's life is taken from them for no justified reason. In verbal insult, the one who receives the insult may be temporarily annoyed, distraught, possibly even furious. Yet few people would say that mere insult is as bad or worse than murder.

Yet the Bible states that those who "blaspheme" against God must be put to death. Moreover, anyone or everyone in that "blasphemer's" community can take it in their own hands and, vigilante-style, put the blasphemer to death. This can be shown to be immoral, because an utterance that is interpreted by believers to be insulting to "God" is not a serious offence--indeed it is questionable whether it is an offence at all. For one thing, there is no evidence that God exists except as an idea in people's heads. How then can one be punished for insulting a mere idea? For another, insulting an idea--i.e., by criticizing it, mocking it, etc.--has proven benefits, e.g., see the disciplines of science, philosophy, and comedy for examples. In those disciplines, ideas are criticized as a matter of course, and better ideas tend to result from that process.

Comment by: Archi Medez | June 10, 2007, 11:17 am

Was just enjoying a fine Monte Cristo with my pal J.S. Mill (they make us smoke OUTSIDE the Pearly Gates now), and he wanted to contribute a good one he got off some time ago:

"I will call no being good who is not what I mean when I apply that term to my fellow creatures."

Comment by: Samuel Langhorne Clemens | June 10, 2007, 11:44 am

Hey Ric,

This first part is not a formal refutation, merely an amusing observation that a detached bystander may make. Here I am, a theist, being lectured by an atheist about the true meaning of worship. I think it is pretty funny.

So to deal with your comment, you perceive me as confusing love with worship. I think a more appropriate statement is not that I confuse love for God with worshipping God, but that I worship God because I love God.

God is no doubt qualitatively different from me. If he is not omnipotent, he is still qualitatively different from me. This is undeniable. however you must also realize that I believe that humans are made in God's image too, so I would expect some sort of similarity.

I am also not sure why you think that something must be qualitatively different for one to worship it. I am also not sure why you differentiate worship in the "religious" sense from any other sense. I do not see a large difference. Indeed that is a common theme among sermons delivered in church; that it is possible to worship other things in your life more than God.

I think the heart of the matter is that to determine if something is worthy of worship is a personal subjective matter. There is no objective standard by which we can measure whether something is worthy of worship. I think that it is possible that no matter what properties God could have, that some people would still not consider God worthy of worship, even if they became convinced of God's existence.

To put it another way, in order for your argument to work, you have to establish that there is an objective "one real way that religious worship is supposed to be", and that there are a set of qualities which are the absolute objective standard by which all worth of worship is measured by. I think you are trying to make a very "slippery" and non-concrete thing into an objective, empirical thing and that does not work very well with complex things like religious belief.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 10, 2007, 12:21 pm

CalUWxBill,

As far as my part about suffering, I think I brought that up in favor of the argument from the problem of evil. Such sufferings cannot be explained away by a just god. As far as worship is concerned. I've never really understood the idea.

Thank you for your response, it helps to clarify your position a lot. You sound a lot more like a deist, someone who is content to believe that a god exists but not someone that believes the god intervenes in our lives. Is that right?

I'm not so sure that many Christians would be happy to concede that God does not care about justice for humans or about our lives and feelings.

Comment by: Adrian | June 10, 2007, 12:21 pm

Adrian,

I'm an atheist. Maybe I'm trying to frame my thoughts to much in the mind of somebody trying to determine if there is or isn't a god. That was sort of the point. I want Mollie or whoever is thinking about these questions to decide what they think God must atleast be, then analyze the world to see if those claims hold true. I guess you could also make the minimum characteristics necessary for one to consider worship of a god, which is different than mere existence. But, like I said, worship to me is hardly something God would need or want. If he's really sweating keeping everything in order (whatever that is), then maybe a humble bow of praise is in store, that is about as far as I can see worship being extended.

Anyway, so as not to confuse you guys. I'll reitirate I'm an atheist.

Comment by: CalUWxBill | June 10, 2007, 1:44 pm

Ebonmuse:

Thank-you for your compassionate appeal to your 'friends' on the other thread. I was about to suggest that they go read your 'Virtues' section. :)

I want to return to the reason I asked the question here in the first place. I would agree that God is omniscient, omnipotent, as well as all-loving. I believe that perhaps your definition of all-loving/perfectly loving is slightly different than what the Bible teaches. I also believe that the attributes of justice, holiness, and being longsuffering DO matter in this equation.

All-loving means God would do the highest good for the object being loved and in God's case, it would bring him the most glory. I understand that you assume this means he would get rid of evil immediately (because you think that would be the highest good). We can hardly begin to grasp what is the best good for ourselves, much less what will bring him the most glory. Let me continue.

God is completely holy (Leviticus chapters 11, 19, 20) and just (Psalm 11, 99:4). Allow me to define these terms. Holy means to be separate from all that is unclean and evil and He is positively pure and distinct from all others. Justice means moral equity; being all-righteous. He will always deal with people in the most moral, fair way possible. Also, God is longsuffering (patient) (Exodus 34:6, Psalm 86:15). Finally, I should define sin. Sin is any defection from God's standard that does not conform to His nature/qualities (for example, God is Truth, so lying is contrary to that) (Romans 3:23).

I return back to your argument from evil. I agree with premises 2-4. However, I would re-state Premise 5 to read- A perfectly loving being would hate all evil. I’m not sure if you mean by ‘desire’- that the action following would have to be immediate. If it doesn’t need to be immediate, then I could agree with how you stated it.

This is why I do not believe that a perfectly loving God would eradicate evil immediately- but eventually He will.

However, there is a problem. The humans that God wants to have a relationship with have sinned. This does not mean that every person has done ‘horrible, heinous crimes’, but it does mean that one little sin has tainted you. James 2:10. If you don’t believe that sin is as heinous to God as He describes it (being worthy of eternal punishment- Matthew 25:46), then you do not have a proper understanding of God’s holiness in relation to sin. As explained above, sin in the eyes of God is not trivial. He does not take an ‘oops- try better next time’ attitude. A perfectly holy & just being would not let sin/evil go unpunished (Romans 3:23, 6:23). Thus, if God were to eradicate evil, he would have to eliminate all who are sinful (which is everyone!).

A perfectly loving being would provide a way for sin/evil to be dealt with AND for humans to avoid eternal punishment (and spend eternity with Him- this is the highest good for humans). In this way, justice would be satisfied and perfect love would be displayed. So, one option is to pay the debt created by sin ourselves- eternal punishment. The other option is to accept the payment that someone else (Jesus Christ) has made on our behalf (John 3:16; Colossians 2:14)- and thus receive forgiveness from those sins and eternal life.

Next, a longsuffering (patient) being would allow the maximum time (according to His perfect will) for humans to come to the realization that they have offended him infinitely, deserve eternal punishment and need forgiveness (salvation) (2 Peter 3:9).

Conclusion: Evil exists and must be dealt with justly. God provides a perfect way for sin to be dealt with (justice & holiness) as well as a way for people to be saved from that judgment (perfect love). If God were to eradicate evil immediately, He would not be displaying perfect love.

P.S.
Finally- if God is truly all-powerful & all-knowing, we cannot expect to wrap our finite minds around the infinite. We can know what He has told us about Himself, but we cannot use logic and reason to derive something about God that He has not chosen to reveal about Himself (otherwise he wouldn’t be omnipotent and omniscient).

Comment by: Mollie | June 10, 2007, 5:43 pm

All-loving means God would do the highest good for the object being loved and in God's case, it would bring him the most glory.

Do you mean to imply that god being "all-loving" means that he loves himself above all?

Conclusion: Evil exists and must be dealt with justly.

Evil exists because god caused it. To assert otherwise would be to assert that it is not according to god's plan, but how can anything be against god's plan (since he's omnipotent and omniscient and all that)? So, god created evil knowing that he would have to eternally punish those who just don't get it (which brings up another sticky point in that god knows what it would take for me or anyone else to come to belief, but does not do it.) So, god created evil knowing that he would eternally punish people for that which he created. That's not the sort of god that most would deem all-loving, just, or worthy of worship.

Comment by: OMGF | June 10, 2007, 6:23 pm

Matt R: Your comment was hilarious! I'm sorry that I didn't get around to reading it until now. I've been working with a lot of my pals and colleagues (gods to mere mortals such as thee) and we have been trying to get God to lend us some omniscience every now and then, but he doesn't cooperate. (By the way,since I'm closer to his level, he allows me to address him without capitalizing his name and referential pronouns; don't you try this at home!)

Do you think you guys around here are unique in not believing in me? Me and the other members of the Mythical Beings Alliance have all encountered disbelief from many quarters--usually after some wise-ass started asking "rational" or "logical" questions. I always encouraged them to smite the folks the way I used to do, but their ability to work in the real world is more limited than mine. Now, I just post on the net to prove my existence. As for worship, well, I can't tell you some of the things I've seen proposed and done after showing the size, power and skillful manipulation of my Mighty Hammer. (Only women and gay men respond with worship, though. Can't figure out why...)

Anyway, I gonna continue to read these pages because that Ebonmuse writes DIVINELY!

Comment by: TheMightyThor | June 10, 2007, 7:21 pm

Hey Matt,

This first part is not a formal refutation, merely an amusing observation that a detached bystander may make. Here I am, a theist, being lectured by an atheist about the true meaning of worship. I think it is pretty funny.

It is funny, but remember that I'm speaking basically from theistic assumptions, for the sake of a hypothetical stance. Just saying to you "I don't believe it because it really makes no sense" wouldn't have any chance of convincing you. :)

snip...
I am also not sure why you think that something must be qualitatively different for one to worship it. I am also not sure why you differentiate worship in the "religious" sense from any other sense. I do not see a large difference. Indeed that is a common theme among sermons delivered in church; that it is possible to worship other things in your life more than God.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the religious exhortation to avoid false idols, etc. But I really find this to be simply the fallacy of equivocation. Religious worship is different from any other kind of worship.

Let me approach this problem from a different perspective. Let's try another hypothetical:

Imagine I am just like Job, a man "perfect and upright." And let's leave the question of original sin out of it. Imagine that I have committed no sin worthy of my being condemned to hell. But imagine also that I do not worship god. That fact alone would be enough to condemn me to hell.

Now if god is just, as you would certainly claim, it is right that I be condemned to hell for not worshiping him. If god is not just and still condemns me to hell for not worshiping, he is simply a tyrant and evil. So he's just, and I go to hell. Now is there anything else in the universe that would carry the penalty of damnation for failure to worship it? If I don't "worship" my wife, should I go to hell? If I don't worship some extremely powerful spirit, even though it tells me to, is it just that I be condemned to hell? I'm guessing your answer is no. So this demonstrates that worship of god is different from any other form of worship that exists. It's not so slippery as it seems.

Now, according to the theist, what makes it just that I be condemned to hell if I don't worship god? Only the fact that god is omni-everything. Otherwise I would have no call to complain if, theoretically, some very powerful (but imperfect) spirit (perhaps like Satan) punished me (read condemned me to a hell-like place) for the sole fault of not worshiping it. But I do have call to complain in all cases-- except one. Does that make anymore sense?

Comment by: Ric | June 10, 2007, 7:29 pm

Hello all,

When I read the Bible, I do not get the impression that the God described is absolutely omniscient or omnipotent or even omnibenevolent. I think that most people who have read the bible with the "Christian spam filter v2.0" shut down would agree with me, particularly regarding the Old Testament. There are many places in the Bible where God clearly values certain people over others, as he does in dealing with Moses and Pharaoh. There are many places in the Bible where God seems disappointed about previous choices he had made. Choosing Saul as king of Israel, or creating humankind shortly before the flood. Even the cornerstone of the Christian faith, the incarnation of God as Jesus, seems rather odd if God were absolutely omnipotent. It seems that if God were omnipotent in the sense that is generally proposed, that there would be a much better way, perhaps.

Basically, I am not sure that the argument from Evil works against the God of the Bible. It works against the God of modern popular Christian tradition, but if one looks at the Bible and takes the text for what it is, without imposing preconcieved notions on it, I think things change a great deal.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 10, 2007, 7:33 pm

Matt,

Here are my thoughts based on my comment above, and based on your post above.

If the god of the Bible is not omni-etc., then he has no right to ask me to worship him, and if he condemns me to hell for not doing so, then the god of the Bible is a monster. Your god is apparently no better than a bully telling me to kiss his feet and then punching me in the face for not doing so.

Think about it.

Comment by: Ric | June 10, 2007, 7:49 pm

Hi Ric,

Just saying to you "I don't believe it because it really makes no sense" wouldn't have any chance of convincing you. :)

...especially since I already think that a lot of it does not make sense! :)

Now if god is just, as you would certainly claim, it is right that I be condemned to hell for not worshiping him. If god is not just and still condemns me to hell for not worshiping, he is simply a tyrant and evil. So he's just, and I go to hell. Now is there anything else in the universe that would carry the penalty of damnation for failure to worship it? If I don't "worship" my wife, should I go to hell? If I don't worship some extremely powerful spirit, even though it tells me to, is it just that I be condemned to hell? I'm guessing your answer is no. So this demonstrates that worship of god is different from any other form of worship that exists. It's not so slippery as it seems.

I do not see that this addresses the quality of worship so much as the object of worship. Your scenario works equally well if the quality of worship is identical when applied to God, or my wife, or another spirit. The only difference is the object of the worship.

This argument makes more sense to me. Let me reiterate it to you to ensure I understand.

1) Most Christians state that the reason not worshiping God is worthy of eternal damnation is because of God's omnipotence, omniscience, etc...

2) From the Christian perspective, people will go to hell if they choose to not worship God.

3) Therefore God must be omnipotent, omniscient, etc...

Is that basically what you are proposing?

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 10, 2007, 7:56 pm

Mollie,

**Thus, if God were to eradicate evil, he would have to eliminate all who are sinful (which is everyone!). ** Why couldn't God just eliminate the evil portions of people, and leave the good? Under this logic, if humans were completely and only evil, then when what exactly is being 'saved?' Else when the sin is washed away, the person completely vanishes.

** If you don’t believe that sin is as heinous to God as He describes it (being worthy of eternal punishment- Matthew 25:46), ** The problem with using Matthew 25:46 as justification is that faith played no part in determining the eternal punishment here. What got someone eternally punished was his/her actions towards the unfortunate. If the Synoptic Gospels are combined with much of the prophets, God overall seems more concerned with treatment towards the poor/oppressed than anything else.

**The other option is to accept the payment that someone else (Jesus Christ) has made on our behalf (John 3:16; Colossians 2:14)- and thus receive forgiveness from those sins and eternal life.** I would also disagree that either of those verses speak of the payment Jesus made on our behalf. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus into the world so that the world may have etneral life and not perish (and use of the word perish calls into question 'eternal punishment,' since stuff that perishes ceases to exist). It says nothing about payment. That seems to be something read back into the text. With Colossians 2:14, that says nothing about payment, either. The context speaks more towards the fact that the cross was used to make captive all opposing powers and authority. It does say that the sin was cancelled, but that easily plays into the Ransom Theory of the cross.

**So, one option is to pay the debt created by sin ourselves- eternal punishment. The other option is to accept the payment that someone else (Jesus Christ) has made on our behalf (John 3:16; Colossians 2:14)- and thus receive forgiveness from those sins and eternal life.** If the punishment is eternal suffering, then how exactly did Jesus pay it? Jesus didn't suffer eternally. The other thing is that you seem to be arguing the ATonement theory, correct? And my understanding is that the atonement theory wasn't developed until the 11th century or so. I believe the Ransom theory was used until then, and the Eastern Orthodox hold to a 'Christus Victor' theory.

The other problem with the eternal punishment/life concept is that there is very little mention of either concept in the Old Testament until the Book of Daniel. It doesn't really play a role in Jewish theology. It seems odd that something so important wouldn't be developed until late in the Bible.

Matt R,

I agree with you. In the early Old Testament, God comes across as a human with superpowers, and then the concept of God evolves during the later writings.

Comment by: Heather | June 10, 2007, 7:56 pm

Hi Mollie,

You probably don't realize it, but your comment is packed with Christian assumptions that atheists don't accept. Allow me to call your attention to some of them:

We can hardly begin to grasp what is the best good for ourselves, much less what will bring him the most glory.

If this is true, then why do you assert with such confidence that God is good? Making that judgment requires at least some understanding of motive and intent. If we can't understand his ways and don't know what is best for us, then to be consistent, you'd have to say that you don't know whether God is good or evil. He could be acting in ways that are not best for us - how would you know?

This is why I do not believe that a perfectly loving God would eradicate evil immediately...

And why on earth would he not? The mere statement that action need not always be simultaneous with desire does not explain why it is not simultaneous in this particular case. In fact, if God does not desire sin to exist, why would he create a world with any sin in it in the first place? Why would he even allow it to come into being?

This does not mean that every person has done ‘horrible, heinous crimes’, but it does mean that one little sin has tainted you.

It makes no sense to say that a just God would deliberately create imperfect humans, knowing in advance that they would sin, and then condemn them for it. That would be like if I were a sculptor who created a statue, and then smashed it to bits in a rage to punish it for not meeting my standard of fine art. Who could I possibly blame for its imperfection other than myself? Likewise, an all-powerful god could have created free-willed beings who would freely choose never to sin.

...humans to come to the realization that they have offended him infinitely, deserve eternal punishment...

Here's the big whopper of an assumption. Even granting that evil deeds deserve to be punished, why eternal punishment?

By definition, justice means that a misdeed is punished in proportion to its severity. Human beings are finite, and can only commit finite acts; therefore, eternal punishment would by definition be infinitely disproportionate compared to any human act, and infinitely unjust.

The usual Christian retort is that, since God is an infinite being, any crime against him is multiplied by infinity. The problem with this is that it is impossible to commit a crime against God. If such a being exists, he cannot be harmed or diminished in the slightest by anything a human being could possibly do. An act that causes no harm to anyone is not a crime, and is therefore not worthy of any punishment, much less eternal punishment.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | June 10, 2007, 8:52 pm

Matt,

This argument makes more sense to me. Let me reiterate it to you to ensure I understand.

1) Most Christians state that the reason not worshiping God is worthy of eternal damnation is because of God's omnipotence, omniscience, etc…

2) From the Christian perspective, people will go to hell if they choose to not worship God.

3) Therefore God must be omnipotent, omniscient, etc…

Sort of. Here's how I'd state it, though.

1) It is agreed that god is just to punish me (condemn me to hell) for not worshiping him.

2) It is agreed that it would be unjust for any other being in existence to punish me for not worshiping him.

3) The difference between god and other beings is god's omni-nesses.

4) Thus the only being worthy of worship is one that is omni-etc.

Which, of course, leads us to the problem of evil.

Comment by: Ric | June 10, 2007, 9:22 pm

I'm not sure I can gather my words properly to address Mollie.

Ebonmuse you did a fantastic job.

I'd like to add a couple of things.

- I'm not sure how we can sin against God. Reading the Bible it's hard to determine a clear reason for divine justice, but one such reason that seems obvious is God must avenge those who have been wronged. God was created, possibly for many reasons, but one is to allow the righteous to live righteously without fear and to penalize those who have sinned.

- God works, because he is both infinite and unknowable. In other words, a person's understanding can't compare to that of God. Unfortunately this characteristic is God's biggest vulnerability. Because God pretty much goes unquestioned beyond our own intellect, anything accorded to God and written in stone pretty much stands. Basically, Joe Schmoses comes along and says "this is what God wants, this is what God said". And once such an idea becomes established it's nearly impossible for an imperfect intellect to shake the foundation of the infinite God.

We atheists get squawked at for being arrogant, pretending we are better than God. But, please accord some humility to your own beliefs, but at the same time don't be afraid to use the brain (God gave you) to analyze the claims of your religion. If you can't do this, then you are at the whim of a belief system, held captive to it's decrees without any reason of your own. Each person must atleast have some way in determining whether he/she is right or wrong. How do you expect someone on the wrong path to change his/her ways? It makes more sense to me that God or atleast the God of most religions is just a figment of the imagination. But, I don't believe I am captive to my beliefs. However, I must also be shown how I'm wrong, if it's beyond me reach and can't be shown to me, then my belief won't be changed, and I see no reason it should.

Comment by: CalUWxBill | June 10, 2007, 10:36 pm

"How did you come to the conclusion that God only has these three qualities, or that these three are the ultimate? I can think of his holiness and justice that would slightly alter the equation."

Why do theists ask questions like this? We got the qualities from their supposed "holy book" that is "inspired" by their God. That deity's "holiness" and "justice" depend on these three qualities. Molly's attempt to say that holiness was seperation from "evil" fails on the fact that God created evil. There is no justice from a deity that favors one group above all others and condemns all of those "others" to eternal torture. God has lied. God has changed its mind. So, there goes her last arguments.

One would hope that someday a theist would actually read their book and not simply depend on their pastors, etc to read it for them.

Comment by: andrea | June 11, 2007, 7:55 am

I just had another discussion with my wife this weekend about the chosen "people thing." How much sense does it make for a being who created innumerable galaxies filled with millions of stars spread across light-years of space to foucs all its attention on Earth.

I'm not done yet.

On this littled turquois and brown planet, this god created millions of species of birds, plants, and animals. Then he creates humans and spreads them over the entire globe. At some point in time, god picks one man out of the entire world and says to him,

"you're the one I choose to know me. Everyone else gets to burn in hell because I didn't reveal myself to them. But your descendants get to have a special relationship with me. And because I chose you, you get to exterminate the peoples living in Canaan; they aren't chosen. Oh BTW, I need you to slit the throats of your cattle on occassion and wring the necks of a few of those birds I made - details to follow."

"Yes, I, God, who created the vast universe and all life on Earth, can only extend my love and mercy to one single tribe of sheepherders. The rest of the human race can go to Hell."

Which is more likely? The scanrio mentioned above? Or, that the Israelites, LIKE ALL PEOPLES throught history, made up a mythology that favors themselves over their neighbors and places them at the center of the universe?

The very idea of being "chosen" rather than letting us CHOOSE, is contrary to justice. Justice mandates that we are responsible for ourselves. But, how can that be if we are incapable on our own? The entire Biblical notion of justice is self-refuting. You're punished because you can't help pissing God off!

Comment by: Polly | June 11, 2007, 10:37 am

Mollie: I think its great that you are willing to post on a forum like this and are willing to discuss things in a systematic way. I love having debates with people who are genuinely opposed to my position, because I either learn more about my own, or find out I was wrong altogether.

I want to return to the reason I asked the question here in the first place. I would agree that God is omniscient, omnipotent, as well as all-loving. I believe that perhaps your definition of all-loving/perfectly loving is slightly different than what the Bible teaches. I also believe that the attributes of justice, holiness, and being longsuffering DO matter in this equation.

To me, justice and longsuffering fall into the all-loving category, and most people who use the term all-loving use it in order to include attributes like this in a fast way (an all-loving being would of course be just and patient). I'm not so sure about your use of "holiness" though

All-loving means God would do the highest good for the object being loved and in God's case, it would bring him the most glory. I understand that you assume this means he would get rid of evil immediately (because you think that would be the highest good). We can hardly begin to grasp what is the best good for ourselves, much less what will bring him the most glory. Let me continue.

Here is where I start to disagree with you. Why does God need to bring himself glory? I'm not sure that has much to do with love. For example, my love for my wife has most do with how I can make her happy, not how I can cause her to exalt me in any way. If I'm loving and caring she will most likely think I'm great, but that's not really my goal; meaning: if I had to choose between an action that would make her truly happy and an action that would make me look good in her eyes, the loving choice would be to make her happy. Also, I disagree with the idea the we do not know what is best for ourselves. If humans truly lack any moral compass, how then does even yourself know you have chosen a righteous path?

God is completely holy (Leviticus chapters 11, 19, 20) and just (Psalm 11, 99:4). Allow me to define these terms. Holy means to be separate from all that is unclean and evil and He is positively pure and distinct from all others. Justice means moral equity; being all-righteous. He will always deal with people in the most moral, fair way possible. Also, God is longsuffering (patient) (Exodus 34:6, Psalm 86:15). Finally, I should define sin. Sin is any defection from God's standard that does not conform to His nature/qualities (for example, God is Truth, so lying is contrary to that) (Romans 3:23).

Good definitions all, but again, justice, longsuffering, and holiness as you describe it could fall into "all-loving" category (again, I'm not opposed to your terms, I just want you to know what people mean by the "all-loving" term).

A perfectly loving being would not desire that anyone be destroyed because of their evil deeds (sin) (2 Peter 3:9). God desires that all humans love and worship him- NOT because he needs it, but because he deserves it. Indeed, a loving being would not want anyone destroyed because of evil deeds. But again, why does God seek worship? You do not seek worship from people you love, why do you find it acceptable that God does?

However, there is a problem. The humans that God wants to have a relationship with have sinned. This does not mean that every person has done ‘horrible, heinous crimes’, but it does mean that one little sin has tainted you.

In what way have we sinned? How have I deviated from the standard of God? If he is truly all loving, I can only assume that he would want what is best for me. As I'm doing my best to grow and mature as a human being, I can hardly see how I have fallen short. You said before that "God is Truth" and therefore a lie would be a sin and therefore unacceptable. I'd like to challenge that. I too find lying repulsive, but I'm smart enough to realize that people often do so under the worst of circumstances, and also that they grow as people, perhaps becoming more honest, and I would not rebuke them indefinitely for dishonesty alone. Does God not understand those mitigating factors? If not, why do you assume he is just? To damn someone forever to the fires of hell for a small shortcoming is childlike, hardly the type of justice I would expect from an "all-loving" being.

If you don’t believe that sin is as heinous to God as He describes it (being worthy of eternal punishment- Matthew 25:46), then you do not have a proper understanding of God’s holiness in relation to sin. As explained above, sin in the eyes of God is not trivial. He does not take an ‘oops- try better next time’ attitude. A perfectly holy & just being would not let sin/evil go unpunished (Romans 3:23, 6:23). Thus, if God were to eradicate evil, he would have to eliminate all who are sinful (which is everyone!).

Again, why should God be so limited that he is not able to take the fullness of the human existence into account when judging sin? The God you have described is hardly loving. In fact he is a horrible tyrant, holding humans to an impossible standard after creating them to be fallible. And remember, using the Bible to describe what might anger God would only really be useful if we both accepted the Bible as a worthwhile source.

A perfectly loving being would provide a way for sin/evil to be dealt with AND for humans to avoid eternal punishment (and spend eternity with Him- this is the highest good for humans). In this way, justice would be satisfied and perfect love would be displayed. So, one option is to pay the debt created by sin ourselves- eternal punishment. The other option is to accept the payment that someone else (Jesus Christ) has made on our behalf (John 3:16; Colossians 2:14)- and thus receive forgiveness from those sins and eternal life.

Why would we have to pay eternal punishment for a finite error? Why is the perfect God you believe in either not able to see how fundamentally flawed his system of justice is or not able to change that system to reflect a more just way of dealing with things. Secondly, why should someone else have to pay? How are they even able to? If God can bend the rules such that someone else can pay for my debt, why is he not able to waive the debt altogether?

Next, a longsuffering (patient) being would allow the maximum time (according to His perfect will) for humans to come to the realization that they have offended him infinitely, deserve eternal punishment and need forgiveness (salvation) (2 Peter 3:9).

In what way does he allow us "maximum time." (people die at all ages, often before they could even understand the concepts you say they must embrace)? Why is there a time limit at all?

Conclusion: Evil exists and must be dealt with justly. God provides a perfect way for sin to be dealt with (justice & holiness) as well as a way for people to be saved from that judgment (perfect love).

But your system is far from perfect, there are all kinds of things wrong with it and improvements that could be made.

Finally- if God is truly all-powerful & all-knowing, we cannot expect to wrap our finite minds around the infinite. We can know what He has told us about Himself, but we cannot use logic and reason to derive something about God that He has not chosen to reveal about Himself (otherwise he wouldn’t be omnipotent and omniscient).

I'd like to challenge you on this. If we are not able to use reason and logic, how will we know what he has told us about himself? How will we differentiate lies from the truth? You say that we cannot understand the plan of God, but you have just described, in detail, what you believe God's system of justice to be and I understood it. Are you saying you did not describe it correctly? I doubt it, I think that, to you, it is a perfectly acceptable and correct explanation.

I've thrown a lot at you here and I hope you don't think I was just taking pot shots at you. In your first post you said that your definition of God (which empasised his holiness and justice) resolved some of the conflicts that atheists often talk about. My point here was to show you that the conflicts are still there under your definition, just a little harder to point out. I'm very interested in your response . . . hope you are still reading this thread.

-Phil

Comment by: ex machina | June 11, 2007, 10:52 am

Ric,

We got a little cross-threaded back there, so I will respond to two threads at once to try and get us back on track.

If the god of the Bible is not omni-etc., then he has no right to ask me to worship him, and if he condemns me to hell for not doing so, then the god of the Bible is a monster. Your god is apparently no better than a bully telling me to kiss his feet and then punching me in the face for not doing so.

I disagree with you on that basis that I do not necessarily think that the triumvarate of omni's is necessary for a being to have the "right" to expect worship. I think it is reasonable for the creator to have special rights to the creation even if that creator lacks the omni's.

Regarding condemning people to hell for not worshipping God. I am not sure that this is what God actually *does*. Your assumption is valid that most Christians believe that God would send some one to hell simply for not worshipping him, but I think the matter of divine reward/punishment is most likely far more involved, considering how complicated life and humans are.

You may be surprised that I have a similar gut reaction to the scenario you described, that it is somewhat bully-ish to demand worship "or else".

Also to prevent confusion, I recognize that the Bible depicts punishments for those who do not worship God. As I said before, there are parts of the Bible which I think do not make sense.

Sort of. Here's how I'd state it, though.

1) It is agreed that god is just to punish me (condemn me to hell) for not worshiping him.

2) It is agreed that it would be unjust for any other being in existence to punish me for not worshiping him.

3) The difference between god and other beings is god's omni-nesses.

4) Thus the only being worthy of worship is one that is omni-etc.

Which, of course, leads us to the problem of evil.

You probably could make a good argument against many Christians here, but I think a little differently. I am not hung up on the omni's. I think that the thing which makes God different is that God is the originator of the reality which we experience, otherwise known as our universe. I think it is possible that God could have created our universe without being omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent.

It is also possible that God is alot more harsh than we think. If one believes that nature reflects the nature of the creator, it is possible that God can be quite harsh at times, assuming the nature we experience is the one he intended for us. Understand that I am not as assertive or confident in the specific attributes of God as your average Christian who sees the Bible as a direct communication from God.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 11, 2007, 11:06 am

Regarding Mollie's post above. I am having a real hard time interpreting it.

I guess this is like me saying toe-mah-toe and you saying spah-tchu-lah. We apparently are not speaking the same language. For example:

All-loving means God would do the highest good for the object being loved and in God's case, it would bring him the most glory.

Why the hell does God need "glory?" And, more specifically, what is "glory" and why should I be handing it out like sweets to someone or something?

glo·ry Pronunciation Key - [glawr-ee, glohr-ee] –noun
3. adoring praise or worshipful thanksgiving: Give glory to God.

OK, now that I know it is "adoring praise" someone please let me know why it is that I have to give such a thing to this God person. "He created the whole universe!" you might say. So?! If he is so high and mighty, that means that he was just doing his job. It apparently wasn't all that hard for him either since it only took a week. You should see how long it takes me to paint a bedroom.

This is where the big disconnect happens. I don't really care that God made everything and everyone. It doesn't do anything for me. Doesn't pay the bills, get rid of this headache or fix my broken sump pump. So if God in all his glory and magnificantness appeared to me on my porch and proclaimed that "It is I, God Most High, Creator of the Universe!" I would say, "Come on in. Take a load off. Would you like something to drink?" And then we would have a really cool discussion about Life, the Universe, and why Serenity was cancelled so quickly. But I wouldn't throw myself down on the floor and cry out in... Fear? Love? Adoration? Or whatever it is that the God botherers amongst us would do. In fact, I wonder if any of them would do anything crazy like that either.

And here is another little bromide:

A perfectly loving being would not desire that anyone be destroyed because of their evil deeds (sin) (2 Peter 3:9). God desires that all humans love and worship him- NOT because he needs it, but because he deserves it.

Again, why does he "deserve" anything? Why does he deisre that I love and worship him? He is so far above us that, try as he might he can't even see a big Fatty like Rosie O'Donnel without commandeering the Hubble Space Telescope. If he doesn't need the treacly pronouncements of thanks that float up uncounted to him every Sunday, why do so many people think that they need to go and do such things. Ohhh! Because he deserves them. Whatever. If we don't make with the hosannas, how will that negatively impact his life? Not a bit.

And anyway, Mollie makes a lot of noise about what a great guy this God person is. I gues she hasn't read the Old Testament where he goes around kiling everyone. And this was before Jesus and forgiveness and hell. So where did all those folks go? Kind of makes it hard to put him in the Love category, don't it?

Finally- if God is truly all-powerful & all-knowing, we cannot expect to wrap our finite minds around the infinite. We can know what He has told us about Himself, but we cannot use logic and reason to derive something about God that He has not chosen to reveal about Himself (otherwise he wouldn’t be omnipotent and omniscient).

We can't know god (because he is so big and mighty) except through his clearly written words in the bible. So why is it that there are so many different churches and sects and cults and basement prayer groups? Everyone who reads that dumb book comes away with a different interpretation. Does God need an editor to make himself better understood to the masses? Or maybe he whould write at the sixth grade level like American newspapers.

Sorry, Mollie dear, you make a lot fo vague pronouncements, but it is all fairy dust and hand waving. Have your boy pop 'round for some of my barbeque sometime (I swear he'll like it!) and we can have a nice sit-down conversation with some beer and brats and ribs and then maybe I will believe he is actually there.

Comment by: corsair the rational pirate | June 11, 2007, 11:20 am

Matt,

You probably could make a good argument against many Christians here, but I think a little differently. I am not hung up on the omni's. I think that the thing which makes God different is that God is the originator of the reality which we experience, otherwise known as our universe. I think it is possible that God could have created our universe without being omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent.

It is also possible that God is alot more harsh than we think. If one believes that nature reflects the nature of the creator, it is possible that God can be quite harsh at times, assuming the nature we experience is the one he intended for us. Understand that I am not as assertive or confident in the specific attributes of God as your average Christian who sees the Bible as a direct communication from God.

Thanks for admitting the validity of my points concerning the average Christian.

I see that your concept of god is a bit different than traditional theology's, which, as various commentators like Dawkins have noted, makes arguing with theists difficult, because the ground is constantly shifting (this is not a criticism of you, BTW).

I guess what I would say to your concept of god is still the same, then: your god has no right to demand worship of me, then, just because he created me, anymore than my parents have a right to demand I worship them. You see this point yourself, as you've noted. It makes god into a monster.

Comment by: Ric | June 11, 2007, 11:29 am

Ebonmuse:
Thanks for your comments/questions. Here is my response.

You probably don't realize it, but your comment is packed with Christian assumptions that atheists don't accept.

I thought that was the whole premise of this argument. Your argument begins with the assumption that the Christian idea of God is true and then tries to prove how it is inconsistent. I am not trying to prove that God exists, just that the Christian idea of God IS consistent.

If we can't understand his ways and don't know what is best for us, then to be consistent, you'd have to say that you don't know whether God is good or evil. He could be acting in ways that are not best for us - how would you know?

I can assert God’s goodness just the same way I can assert his omniscience and omnipotence. The only way I know is that He has revealed his qualities to us in His Word. The Bible says He is good (Psalm 25:8; 69:16). I trust that that is true as I trust that His omniscience and omnipotence are true.

In fact, if God does not desire sin to exist, why would he create a world with any sin in it in the first place?

Great question. I don’t believe that there was sin in the world when He first created it.

Why would he even allow it to come into being?

Also a great question. From what I understand of the Bible, God decided to create beings that could choose whether or not they wanted to serve Him/worship Him. The first beings created were the angels (spirit beings). Although most decided to serve him, one- Satan (also called Lucifer)- decided He wanted to be like God (committing the first sin of pride- elevating himself to be equal to or higher than God- Ezekiel 28; Isaiah 14). Ever since, Satan has been on a quest to usurp God’s rule and authority. God did not create evil. He did create beings with the capacity to do evil (which is basically directly opposing all He is). So WHY did He allow evil? He wanted His creatures to CHOOSE to worship Him on their own accord. If there was no potential for evil, there would be no choice.

Likewise, an all-powerful god could have created free-willed beings who would freely choose never to sin.

He did create them with the ability to never sin. However, they DID choose to sin (swayed by Satan’s temptations). They definitely could have chosen not to.

It makes no sense to say that a just God would deliberately create imperfect humans, knowing in advance that they would sin, and then condemn them for it.

God DIDN’T create imperfect humans, He created perfect ones. They still sinned and He knew they would in advance. And yes, He still condemned them for that sin (Again- just because He knew it would happen didn’t change the fact that He still wanted them to CHOOSE to obey).

That would be like if I were a sculptor who created a statue, and then smashed it to bits in a rage to punish it for not meeting my standard of fine art. Who could I possibly blame for its imperfection other than myself?

This one is so interesting. It just goes to show that there is nothing new under the sun. Paul addressed this very issue in Romans 9:14-24

Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?

And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

So He has mercy on some and condemns others. You may think it seems unfair that God condemns only some- the ones He does not show mercy. The fact is, it is the granting of mercy that is unfair. We all deserve the punishment (having sinned), but those who have faith in Jesus Christ (because of His payment for sins) are given mercy. He did this to bring Himself the most glory.

… it is impossible to commit a crime against God. If such a being exists, he cannot be harmed or diminished in the slightest by anything a human being could possibly do. An act that causes no harm to anyone is not a crime, and is therefore not worthy of any punishment, much less eternal punishment.

I will completely agree with you that God cannot be harmed or diminished in any way. He is separate from His creation. Two ideas are important here. First, if God is our Creator, then we are accountable to Him (similar to how a child is accountable to his parents). Second, God has given us His perfect Law and anything we do contrary to that is sin (1 John 3:4). Again, sin is any defection from God's standard that does not conform to His nature/qualities. So, if God is the one in authority, He sets the standards. And since God is just (possessing moral equity), then He decides what is fair punishment for sins.

By definition, justice means that a misdeed is punished in proportion to its severity.

I believe that the Bible teaches that we HAVE offended God infinitely and thus deserve an infinite punishment. James 2:10 says,

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

Thanks for your conversation. I’ll do my best to answer any further questions you have.

Comment by: Mollie | June 11, 2007, 3:17 pm

**God DIDN’T create imperfect humans, He created perfect ones. ** The problem I would have with this reasoning is that if something is created with the ability to choose to sin, then it's created imperfectly. If God did in fact create man to be perfect, why were Adam/Even tempted to sin, period? In order to want to sin, there must be a desire there. It was earlier stated that it wasn't a choice unless the potential for evil is there. But if man carries the potential to be evil, then man is not created perfectly. In order for something to be a choice, both options must be equally attractive and that can only happen if it is something to be desired.

**I can assert God’s goodness just the same way I can assert his omniscience and omnipotence. The only way I know is that He has revealed his qualities to us in His Word. ** Is this known, or taken on faith? Because we can't 'prove' that God is good or just or perfect. The only validation for the statement that God is any of those characteristics is that it's stated so in the Bible. But then that leads to using the BIble to prove what the Bible says about God.

**So He has mercy on some and condemns others. You may think it seems unfair that God condemns only some- the ones He does not show mercy. The fact is, it is the granting of mercy that is unfair. We all deserve the punishment (having sinned), but those who have faith in Jesus Christ (because of His payment for sins) are given mercy. He did this to bring Himself the most glory.** This doesn't seem like it answered Ebonmuse's point -- if you create something and it doesn't meet up to your standards, then is the thing you created at fault? Or are you, for creating it flawed? The fault would lie with you, and it would be unjust to expect the creation to follow a perfect standard when the creation has inherent flaws.

Comment by: Heather | June 11, 2007, 3:49 pm

What a strange response. Mollie, you do realize that, as atheists and secularists, members of this thread do not regard the Bible as any kind of authoritative source for truth. It seems as though you are pretending not to understand what is said to avoid any kind of real argument. . . . anyway.

I like your analogy of accountability: as a child to his parents. But it is not representative of your definition of God. You say that we deserve eternal punishment for even small sins, but a parent does not punish a child eternally and indefinitely when they make a mistake. Any parent who did would be thought of as a monster. It would not matter how loving, powerful, or knowing (or "holy" or "just, or "patient"), that parent was otherwise, we would still find them unethical. In fact, it would speak to a lack of one of those attributes. Even if he is infinitely powerful/loving/knowing, it would not turn the act of infinite punishment for finite transgression from unethical to ethical.

Comment by: ex machina | June 11, 2007, 3:53 pm

On a tangent --

Ebonmuse, I've been reading your essays listed on the 'The Atheism Pages' and I think one of your best arguments on the existence of hell went along the lines of imagining how much I'd have to hate someone to hold their hand to a hot stove, and then keep it there, even as the person was screaming. That really brings some concepts of God into perspective. Well done.

Comment by: Heather | June 11, 2007, 3:53 pm

Mollie,

The blinders you have on are quite strong, and are blocking out the obvious. It's comparable to having my glasses or contacts out and trying to use a hunting rifle at a distance target. It's impossible to see, without help. The bible amounts to, in my eyes, the chronicles of what people will do for control. 90% of the book is about killing, murder, mass rape, sex, debauchery, and God killing people at a whim, because some children taunted a priest for being bald.

Right now, you've only known the bible, and your own mind playing tricks on you. See, I used to be the same as you, able to defend the bible way past the point of lunacy.

Then, I had my vision of the world 'enhanced' so to speak. I stepped away, able to see the big picture.

I said it best when a pair of Jehova's Witnesses came to my house:
"Jesus is dead, God isn't real and Heavens a lie... Now get the **** away from me."

If God was all-powerful, he wouldn't have allowed Satan into the Garden of Eden. It was simple, effective, and it would've spared Adam and Eve the ejection. It was well within his power, since he can do anything inside and outside of the boundries of physics. But, since we don't see the smoting of non-believers and heretics, one can assume that God either doesn't care, or doesn't exist. And don't use the natural disaster defense, since all tornadoes in the US happen right here in the bible-belt, where the faithful reside.

If God was all-knowing, he knows EVERYTHING about EVERYONE. And since he knows everything, he can see your downfall from Christianity, and your acceptance of atheism. Am I being presumptious? Hell yes. See, you cannot prove faith, because it cannot be faith if you know the truth. That's why most Christians are hipocrytes, and IF God exists, he'll send them to hell. Predestination and free will cannot coincide, because they contradict.

If God was all-good...well, All of us atheists would be swept into oblivion if we even THINK that God, ALL Gods, are fake creations of man to control others. And since I myself live in Minnesota, the top of the bible belt, I think that my life would've ended already. It's not that people haven't tried, yet I keep surviving.

And the militant Xianists who call for our heads on pikes violate the very principle of Christianity, which is to forgive, and condemn at the same time, and let God be the ultimate judge.

I think the analogy of the shepard and the flock of sheep are an unexpected mockery of all Christians...

Since those who go along with the crowd are sheep, I guess that makes the atheist the solitary Wolf. Or in my case, the Snake.

Good day.

Comment by: Mobius 118 | June 11, 2007, 5:48 pm

Molly,
Even though you come from a completely different belief system, it sure was gutsy of you to leave a comment. I know you're probably going to get jumped all over, however, all people and all views are welcome at Daylight Atheism. Ebonmuse is one of gentlest, kindest, most compassionate people in the world. I would suggest you don't get turned off and please stick around. Please visit the site frequently; try to read some of the archived essays. Keep an open mind, and even at the end of the day it sure is interesting to have people with different viewpoints post their comments here. As a matter of fact, I would hope that you turn many of your Christian friends on to this site. Understanding the viewpoints of others who hold completely opposite points of view is intellectually stimulating and sure does make for some great debates, not arguments. We're all in this together.

Comment by: Javaman | June 11, 2007, 6:53 pm

Ric,

Thanks for admitting the validity of my points concerning the average Christian.

I see that your concept of god is a bit different than traditional theology's, which, as various commentators like Dawkins have noted, makes arguing with theists difficult, because the ground is constantly shifting (this is not a criticism of you, BTW).

I guess what I would say to your concept of god is still the same, then: your god has no right to demand worship of me, then, just because he created me, anymore than my parents have a right to demand I worship them. You see this point yourself, as you've noted. It makes god into a monster.

Well, it is not hard for me to "admit" that there are things which do not make sense to me in traditional Christianity. I ask the same questions too. Because of my tendency to think in terms of logic even if they take me outside of the "boundaries" of Biblical ideas, I have rather different and malleable ideas about God. Whereas most Christians promulgate very highly developed detailed descriptions of God, I tend to back off quite a bit and limit it to what I think I know based on my experience, which is the best thing I have to go off of.

I am not convinced that God demands worship of us. He certainly does not seem to overtly punish people who choose not to worship him. I worship God, but things still go wrong for me sometimes. I think it is safe to assume that there are those who do not worship God who are also doing just fine.

If God *did* demand worship, I can see how that would make him seem to be a monster from the perspective of one who does not want to worship him. On the other hand, if God feels like he has been benevolent to humans, he may feel that we are the monsters for rejecting him. From my perspective, I do not face a problem with worshiping God because I feel like he has been benevolent to me.

There is also the possibility that God does exist and he does demand worship and does not give a rip if that makes him a monster. It is scary but still possible.

Cheers,

Matt R.

Comment by: Matt R | June 11, 2007, 8:00 pm

Javaman,
Thank-you for your kind remarks. I have certainly felt 'jumped over' as you stated. I guess that's to be expected with fresh meat- especially a Christian. To keep from being discouraged, I prefer to converse mostly with Ebonmuse who, thus far, has treated me quite respectfully. It's nice to know that there are more of you who are respectful. So, again, thanks to you (and Lynet on another thread who apologized for her first comments) for being kind. It goes a long way in wanting to stay a little longer and chat.

Comment by: Mollie | June 11, 2007, 8:01 pm

Ebonmuse:
This is slightly off topic (sorry again!). But you mentioned that one of the ways that you would convert right on the spot would be

Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.

Would this need to happen in your presence? Or would a story of someone be good enough? Just curious.

Comment by: Mollie | June 11, 2007, 8:15 pm

Mollie,

Consider the following from Ebonmuse,

People's conversion stories.
I'm not interested in the testimonials of people who converted to a religion, not even if they used to be atheists. Everyone has moments of weakness in which emotion overrides logic. Instead of telling me how fast a religion is growing, how much of a difference it's made in people's lives, or how devoted its converts are, let those converts explain what logic and evidence persuaded them to join in the first place. If they can't do this, their stories will not affect me. After all, for obvious reasons, atheists are almost never the sort of people who go along with the crowd.

Any subjective experience.
Saying "I know God exists because I can feel him in my heart" or something similar will not affect me. Most arguments of this sort rest on the assumption that a person cannot have a completely convincing subjective experience and be mistaken regarding its cause, but a look at the diversity of world religions easily disproves this. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists - members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of that faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. Why should an atheist accept any one of these testimonies as more valid than any other?

Comment by: dye | June 11, 2007, 8:28 pm

Mollie,

Your idea greatly remind me of Terminator.

Say the God of Terminator (the engineers) design the bots never to sin. Like I Robot, they are sentiment robot never programmed to sin.

What if the engineer knows in advance that they would sin and caused the world to be nearly destroy? Are they not responsible for the disaster? The only excuse the engineer in Terminator 2 come up with is that he is curious and he did not know it will end up that way. What excuse do God has?

I would believe if an engineer made a bridge that he knows in advance it will collapse and kills everyone on top will be responsible for the death result. Ofcourse the people on top abusing it may have part of the blame, but they can at least pardon themselves because of ignorance.

Comment by: dye | June 11, 2007, 8:37 pm

Hello Mollie,

I can assert God’s goodness just the same way I can assert his omniscience and omnipotence. The only way I know is that He has revealed his qualities to us in His Word.

So... you believe God is good because he tells you he is? Not to be flippant, but this isn't the method you use for human beings, is it? The Qur'an says Allah is good; do you believe that?

Allow me to suggest something you may not have thought of: If you ask someone whether they are a good person, a person who really is good would tell you the truth. But an evil person would lie.

So WHY did He allow evil? He wanted His creatures to CHOOSE to worship Him on their own accord. If there was no potential for evil, there would be no choice.

I disagree. I think an omnipotent god, if there was one, could create beings who would freely choose to worship him of their own accord, and who would always make the right choice. If you think this is impossible, then I have to ask you this: Does God himself have free will? If so, does he have the potential for evil? If not, why couldn't he give us whatever he has that makes this possible?

God DIDN’T create imperfect humans, He created perfect ones.

I have to say, this doesn't make any sense to me. Clearly, according to Christian theology, the first humans were imperfect. If they were perfect, they wouldn't have chosen to sin - that's pretty much the definition of "perfect".

I believe that the Bible teaches that we HAVE offended God infinitely and thus deserve an infinite punishment.

Mollie, at the risk of stating the obvious, you have to remember that we're atheists. We don't believe that the Bible has any special authority. Saying "I believe because the Bible says so" is not going to make any impression on us, any more than if I said to you, "I believe because the writings of Robert Ingersoll say so." We will believe what the Bible says if that claim makes sense and is supported by evidence, but that's the same standard we'd use to judge any claim in any book.

I explained in my previous comment why infinite punishment is an unjust response to any act a human being could commit, and I gave several reasons backing that position up. You're just repeating your prior claim, and that's not going to change any of our minds. Do you have any reasons why you believe this, other than "because the Bible says so"? We'll fairly consider anything you have to say.

Also: you asked about miracles. No, a story isn't good enough; it couldn't possibly be, since every religion has miracle stories of its own, and obviously they can't all be correct. What I'd need is some way to tell the true stories apart from the false ones. A miracle that happened to me, that I could witness with my own eyes, would be one way. Failing that, I'd want to see evidence gathered in some objective way that any person can examine for themself - for example, a scientific study finding that Christian prayer has a statistically significant success rate higher than that of other religions.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | June 11, 2007, 9:45 pm

@corsair,

...and why Serenity was cancelled so quickly.

Is there any more proof necessary that god doesn't exist?

@Mollie,

He did create them with the ability to never sin. However, they DID choose to sin (swayed by Satan’s temptations). They definitely could have chosen not to.

Could they have really chosen that? The fruit they ate was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. They had no knowledge of what good and evil were before they ate the fruit, so how could they tell their choice was an evil choice until after it was made?

And yes, He still condemned them for that sin (Again- just because He knew it would happen didn’t change the fact that He still wanted them to CHOOSE to obey).

Except that when god created them he did so with full knowledge that they would choose to disobey (even though they had not the faculties to know the gravity of the situation.) It seems a bit pointless for a perfect being to secretly hope that he will be wrong about whether his creations will disobey him or not when he fully knows they will.

He did this to bring Himself the most glory.

This statement makes him sound like a petulant sports star that only cares about himself. I'm reminded of how Latrell Spreewell wanted to re-negotiate his contract because he had a family to feed, and apparently the millions of dollars he was currently making wasn't enough.

Comment by: OMGF | June 11, 2007, 9:53 pm

Ebonmuse:
Perhaps I have misunderstood the purpose of this thread. My intent was to take your proof from evil- beginning with the assumption that the Christian idea of God (from the Bible) cannot be true because it is internally inconsistent, and show that the Christian view of God (from the Bible) IS internally consistent.

I would think this is obvious: this is the idea of God held by the vast majority of theists in the world today. That is the idea I wish to argue against, so I'm starting from the believers' own idea of God, taking it as true for the sake of argument, and showing how that idea of God with those specific properties leads to an irresolvable conflict.

Again, I'm not trying to prove that what the Bible says is true or that God exists. I know that you don't believe that. I'm merely showing that the God of the Bible does not lead to an irresolvable conflict.

If I have misunderstood this, let me know.

Comment by: Mollie | June 11, 2007, 10:45 pm

Again, I'm not trying to prove that what the Bible says is true or that God exists. I know that you don't believe that. I'm merely showing that the God of the Bible does not lead to an irresolvable conflict.

And you used Bible quotes several times in your attempts to do this. This lead Ebon and others to then show that the Bible itself is inconsistent or call it into question so as to undermine your assumption.

But now you seem to be saying something pretty interesting. You seem to be saying that the God of the Bible never tried to meet the standards of being all-loving, all-knowing, and/or all-powerful. That's fine. But I and most atheists would then say that a being that does not meet those three criteria, while it might well exist, is not worth worshiping. This is why people spent so much time opposing the idea of infinite punishment for finite transgression. An evil King, for example, might have the power to uphold his corrupt laws, but that does not make the laws worth following. Any being upholding that standard of justice could definitely exist because it is not self contradictory given the nature of evil in the world, but is not really worthy of worship/obedience/whathaveyou.

While you seem to think the Bible offers a reconciliation of the infinite punishment/finite sin issue. . .

First, if God is our Creator, then we are accountable to Him (similar to how a child is accountable to his parents). Second, God has given us His perfect Law and anything we do contrary to that is sin (1 John 3:4). Again, sin is any defection from God's standard that does not conform to His nature/qualities. So, if God is the one in authority, He sets the standards. And since God is just (possessing moral equity), then He decides what is fair punishment for sins.

. . . I still find the idea morally repugnant.

I imagine that this all seems pretty systematic and dry to you, and you probably fail to see how it is important. But philosophical discourse on God has a long a and rich history. You should go to your local community college and take a course or two in either philosophy or theology. You'll learn where a lot of ideas about God come from and the ways in which both sides of the argument present their case (both believers and non-believers).

Comment by: ex machina | June 12, 2007, 9:39 am

I'll jump in here with a question, just a question.

Mollie do you subscribe to presuppositionalism? That is, do you regard all philosophies to be equally built on the same starting principles and therefore, the only onus on a believer is (1)to show that Christian theology is internally consistent in the way facts are interpreted and (2)that all other worldviews are not? (Actually, I don't think your attempting the 2nd part.)
I'm not anxiously holding any arguments at the ready in case you say yes/no. I'm just curious.

Comment by: Polly | June 12, 2007, 12:51 pm

Hi Polly,
I'm not quite sure I understand your question. From what I understand, I don't think that all philosophies are built on the same principles. One of my basic presuppositions is that God does exist. This isn't a presupposition of an atheist (from what I read here). Again, I'm not sure if this is answering your question or not.

Comment by: Mollie | June 12, 2007, 1:41 pm

Polly-
Can I ask the same question of you- do you believe all philosophies are built on the same principles or have the same presuppositions? (that is- if this is what you actually asked me in the first place :) ). If not, what are yours? Again- I'm just curious like you. :)

Comment by: Mollie | June 12, 2007, 1:43 pm

So, I guess your answer is "no." It's a school of Christian apologist thought. If you want to know more about it, you can find an entry for it on Wikipedia under "presuppositionalism." As a Christian you might be interested in it as trivia, but I would say it's a step backward in terms of dealing with unbelievers.

There are different ideas about how we can gain knowledge of the world and I think some of those ideas are better than others. Generally, I think science is superior to mysticism and faith as a means of gaining knowledge outside of ourselves/ and often even within ourselves. (Observe and measure and record and then analyze some aspect of your lifestyle and you'll probably find something or some insight about you that you never knew!)
As for me, I go wherever evidence takes me. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I believe that the "physical" world, that operates according to the laws of physics, is all there is. And, my bias is occam's razor. I will look for natural explanations for a phenomenon before looking for a supernatural one. Only when those are exhausted will I turn to a supernatural explanation. Hasn't happened, yet. :)

I hope that answered your question.

Comment by: Polly | June 12, 2007, 2:44 pm

Polly- thanks for clarifying that. I guess I would propose that everyone begins with a certain presupposition at the very basic level of thought. You then use that thought to understand the things around you. I'm guessing yours is science/logic.

I'm not looking for an argument here- just proposing that we all start with presuppositions- Christian and non-Christian alike.

Comment by: Mollie | June 12, 2007, 3:10 pm

Mollie,
I am an atheist. I totally reject God, the Bible and all other theisms. I am very kind, compassionate and caring, and I do all this in the absence of God. I don't need religion. I don't need God to be a good person. Morality does not stem from your Christian god. He kills millions of people, inlcuding children and old people in the Old Testament. Are you a God-fearing person? How can you have a relationship with a deity whom you fear? How can you love and fear someone at the same time? This is what an abusive relationship is all about. I am totally at peace with my atheism, but if I do have it totally wrong and God exists exactly as you envision him to be, I believe I will be one of the first people let into heaven. Many of my atheist brethren are trying to free your mind. I would like to know more about you; in particular, what brand of Christianity you follow. I'm assuming when you go to church nobody is allowed to dissent in public with the Bible and its doctrines. You are experiencing group conformity. I would refer you to a famous psychological study performed by Solomon Asch, which describes how easily humans, because we are herd animals, conform to the need to belong to a group that protects them and will do and believe whatever they are told. Most people at this site are appealing to your intellect, which is something religion has disconnected. I, on the other hand, prefer the emotional landscape. A Freudian concept of religion is a return to childhood and is very infantile. This is not a put-down. When you were very small and you were frightened, perhaps you ran to your father for protection and to make the world safe. We all must face death, old age and disease. This is the existential crisis we all must go through. Many people can't take the truth, but I believe that when you die you blink out of consciousness; game over. Psychologically, it's impossible to envision a world in which you are not a part. Ancient humans needed to make sense of death and envisioned an afterworld where all would be reunited. This is normal; it's how the biology of the brain works. It's very scary to be a human and to be alive. You're frightened, and you need something to cling to. If religion gets you through the night, so be it, but the historical record of Christians is barbaric, cruel and inhumane, and in my opinion is detrimental to the human race. My remark about being jumped on is that you are being intellectually challenged to defend the logic of your thoughts. Please stick around. Please continue to post. I know it's hard to let go of God. I suggest you get the Julia Sweeney CD, "Letting Go of God". Once again, it's great hearing a different viewpoint, and I would be sad if you left.

Comment by: Javaman | June 12, 2007, 5:06 pm

God cannot be all-powerful and all-knowing; the two contradict themselves. If God is all knowing, he must know the future, including what he will do. But if he knows what he is going to do, does that mean he does not have the power to change his mind? If he can change his mind, he does not know all; if he cannot change his mind he is not all powerful.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | June 12, 2007, 8:50 pm

Mollie,
Let me try and take a stab at rephrasing what Ebonmuse states in his essay.

I'm sure you would agree that a perfectly loving God, would/cannot allow unnecessary suffering to occur.

Now, your argument seems to be that He allows this suffering to take place because it's necessary to achieve some 'noble' end.

However, an omnipotent being would be able to achieve any goal he desires without having innocent people suffer (unless of course his goal is to have innocent people suffer).

So either you are saying:

1. God has this 'noble' goal he is trying to achieve which he cannot do without letting innocent people suffer. This of course would directly contradict Assumption (1b)

2. You hold that Assumption (1b) is true, which means that God can in fact achieve said goal without having innocent people suffer yet chooses to do so. This of course would directly contradict Assumption (1c)

Comment by: Dave W. | June 13, 2007, 1:42 pm

I'm not looking for an argument here- just proposing that we all start with presuppositions- Christian and non-Christian alike.

The enterprise of science strives to eliminate presuppositions. One can still attain the scientific knowledge we have by starting with a blank slate and proceeding with the scientific process. This does not constitute a "presupposition." Religious thought, however, does deal in presuppositions because it necessitates the acceptance of unsupported assumptions of god's existence.

Comment by: OMGF | June 13, 2007, 4:39 pm

I think Descarte attempted to start without presuppositions in trying to prove God. I don't buy his conclusion, but at least he made the attempt. But, that was philosophical thinking, not religious thinking.

Science does indeed start with a few assumptions. First and foremost is that there is order in the universe and that we can discover it. Cause and effect is an assumption. Even Occam's razor has a metaphysical bias toward materialism. The philosophy of science itself has undergone evolution. Falsification (Popperism?) is a good but relatively recent invention (XX C.). Other ideas have been brought up that are downright anarchic but have some merit. The direction science can take can be limited or broadened depending on the paradigm. Do we look for answers in the current model? Do we try something "stupid" and hope to find something new? Where's the big money? What's the big money theory?

Science as an institution is subject to some of the same inertial forces of human society, which is that people tend to maintain the status quo. Research generally investigates WITHIN the current popular paradigm. I wouldn't characterize science as a blank slate. I see nothing wrong with any of this, of course. We have to start somewhere.
I think the advantage that science has over religion is in what we do to mitigate the possibility that we'll be blinded by our blinders. That's crucial! Science needs to be vigilant about this risk, too, if there's to be any hope for innovation, i.e. for truly new discoveries as opposed to merely cataloging the confirming instances of an old idea. (Also important, but not as exciting.)

The problem with religion is that it doesn't seek to take off the blinders and, instead, actively, AGRESSIVELY discourages thinking outside the box by calling any opposing idea "heresy." Opposing facts are ignored. The framework is established and is not even allowed to be tested for confirmation (that's already presupposed) let alone tried for falsifiability (that's "testing" god).

To the extent religion makes claims about the physical world, it has been put to the test and is generally wrong - probably because so much religion was invented by ancient peoples. When religion asserts "truths" about the supernatural, well, none of it is really testable. When