Pastelland Forum

Taalit wrote:

Anteroinen wrote:Omnipotence has rather irrelevant paradoxes ("Can God create a rock he can't lift?")

"Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" doesn't even make sense. It's on the same level as a five year old arguing with somebody and saying "nu-uh times infinity plus one".

Although I agree it is a infantile argument, I fail to understand why it doesn't make sense.

EDIT: Or how it is significantly different from saying "Can an omnipotent being fail?"

For that he would need to give up on his omnipotence, like, removing the power from himself. Maybe storing it somewhere?

gil2455526 wrote:For that he would need to give up on his omnipotence, like, removing the power from himself. Maybe storing it somewhere?

But then he wouldn't be omnipotent while failing.

Anteroinen wrote:

Taalit wrote:

Anteroinen wrote:Omnipotence has rather irrelevant paradoxes ("Can God create a rock he can't lift?")

"Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" doesn't even make sense. It's on the same level as a five year old arguing with somebody and saying "nu-uh times infinity plus one".

Although I agree it is a infantile argument, I fail to understand why it doesn't make sense.

EDIT: Or how it is significantly different from saying "Can an omnipotent being fail?"

It doesn't make sense because "So heavy an infinitely powerful being can't lift it" literally cannot describe any object. That's why I gave my five-year-old example, because those kinds of antics are ridiculous for the exact same reason: Infinity plus one doesn't mean anything.

Can God create a red brick that's blue?

Ok, I've cut out a few things I wanted to include, and rewrote the into so I could actually get this thing posted! It was just taking me too long. XP

What makes this issue so difficult is that most of us have a very wonderful understanding of ethics we usually call humanism, which for now I'll define by the universalizing of the value of individuals and their rights up until the point of harming others. And God does not seem to hold those same ideas of humanism, or even command a complete and clear theory of them. So, while I feel fairly confident in defining ethics between humanity, I'm not certain it is the same between us and a creator God. The problem seems to lie in part in the intuition of the believer that if God created us for a purpose or set of purposes, he is in some ways justified in judging us evil if we willfully reject those purposes, yet if we humans were to create a human-like individual or race, we would not be justified in judging them if they didn't fulfill purposes we made them for WHICH do not conform to the ethics of humanism. All that to say, we can't play God, but God can. Why? Is it just a "might makes right" argument or a "I say it's good, so it's good" argument? I don't think so. I think, rather, that if we look through all the ideas we see that there is a logical system in it, one that justifies the apparent contradictions between such things as, for example, God's maximal benevolence and the fact that we don't experience ONLY benevolence, like stubbing our toe, or getting sent to hell. XP (I know, hell isn't funny, it is actually the most disturbing part of Christianity I know of, and unfortunately I'm not going to deal with it just yet because I want to get this darn thing posted!)

So, I'll start by trying to defend the "rape" law you mentioned, though I can't complete my defense yet. The point of the law is not a guide to how to morally rape a woman; there is no moral rape. (Though if God's definition of morality is purely utilitarian, or for the greater good, there might be a scenario where rape is a good. I'm doubt that however.) Rather, this is a purely legal, not a purely moral law. The difference is one of practical human judgments. If a woman is in a field where you can't hear her scream, then no one knows if she was actually being raped or was complicity committing adultery (another issue entirely which I'm sure someone will now jump on. ). In the normative human social law (something enforced by all, not by law) of the time and region, women had very few rights and were somewhere between slaves and family, or at least among the lowest on the social pyramid.

This was not God's law; no where in scripture does God command this social construct. Strangely, he doesn't attempt to change it, and I'll get to that point later. Yet while he doesn't attempt to change it, he does build in social protections for powerless women. So, in those times the social norm was that women who have had sex with anyone but their husband are at least scorned and at the most stoned (another point is that it is generally agreed among archeologists and scholars alike that the laws of the OT were more like maximum penalties, not necessarily commanded actions). By forcing the man to marry her and paying a dowry, God has set up a law to make sure that a woman who otherwise would have had no future, has a chance of one. We are of course squeamish about the idea of a woman WANTING to be married to the man who rapped her, but we are also use to the idea of being married for love rather than by arrangement, a purely utilitarian marriage (and again you might ask, why didn't God change that particular social construct of the time? I'll get there...). And ironically, this law seems to favor the woman, because technically a woman could fake a rape and accuse the man she wants to marry... which is obviously twisted and is just another example of how there simply CANNOT BE a perfect legal code. It's not possible even for a perfect God because even if God were to write out an every case scenario that WAS perfect, mankind would not be able to remember and catalog it all, at least not before the advent of computers. That before almost any other argument is why the OT laws are not MORAL laws, but are social laws for a certain period of time, born to fulfill a purpose until the time was right for Christ's birth. And there is much more to be said about that, but I'll switch gears now.

I prefer to cut through all the old testament examples, which I can and may defend, and go straight to what is on the heart of most modern people: why didn't God give the people of the OT our modern concepts of morality and universality of race and gender if he really is good? In other words, instead of that law protecting the socially powerless raped woman, why not socially empower women? I'm slowly building up to this most excellent objection, but first I have to set up the heart of the problem:

But at the heart of the problem of God not teaching a "perfect" code of virtue and humanism is, I think, the argument of what God's purpose in making humanity is in the first place; what his ultimate "good" or morality is in relationship to us. One purpose all Christians agree on is what I will call the love principle, that he created us to love and enjoy him, who is the origination of love and joy, for all of eternity. However, if it is just to love us, a kind of soft frivolous niceness, he could have made it so we could never feel any pain: not from the world, from him, or from each other. We could be more like happy zombies, or automatons, feeling no pain or frustration because we are never able to do anything that would harm ourselves or others. Life would have no real progression, growth, challenge or accomplishment. We could in fact, not truly be said to love each other because a key factor in love is doing that which we dislike because of our love. So this seems a failed hypothetical purpose: God wasn't intending for us just to be loved in a feel good way. I do think this is part of his purpose, but not the hole of it.

The next purpose I think is what I'll call the free will principle (and yes, WorldisQuite and others anticipated this one, so good job XD): our ability to determine what is right or wrong, good or bad for ourselves in any given situation. This is what the story of the fall is about: not merely knowledge, which it seems clear Adam at least was using as he named the animals (in the Hebrew traditions, naming was very important and often had to do with the nature of a thing... this is also a part of the argument for why the correct interpretation for the word "day" in Genesis 1 is "an unspecified period of time" as in, "in the day of Joe the Farmer..." rather than a single 24 hour period as the young earthers interpret it: Adam wouldn't have had time to name all the animals in a single day.). It was never merely knowledge God was against, but the knowledge of Good and Evil. In other words, they, the limited beings, determined for themselves what is good rather than checking with the infinite being for the ultimate perspective on good and evil. So, from the beginning, the point seems to be whether or not people would choose the Ultimate Good which is embodied in God, or whether we would choose our own way. The story of Adam and Eve, regardless if it is a literal event or not, is a symbol that eventually, in spite of our intentions, we will decide to do something without clearing it with the big guy.

The tricky part of free will is that if we are truly going to have the freedom to choose, then we will have the freedom to choose things that will cause suffering to ourselves and others, even monstrous suffering, as in the Holocaust. In fact, if this view is true, then the only way to stay completely free, or perhaps I should just say as free as possible, from actions that would cause harm is to constantly be in contact with God and asking for direction in our choices and actions. And that is, in fact, something I believe in, and it has served me well.

But notice that the free will issue also makes the fight against evil possible. If there was no suffering, no bad guys so to speak, then there could not be heroes, courage, and the determination to be strong, good, and victorious over the bad by being the best we can be. Without the evil of free will, there cannot be the good of free will. This is another principle: the principle of human accomplishment.

Another moral obligation that the limitations of God's principles of love and free will produce would be, I would argue, what I will call the maturing principle, which is to allow humanity as a whole the chance to develop as much of their culture, morality and other achievements as possible. This is akin to letting a child try and fail by themselves instead of doing everything for them. Only in this case, God sees it as a work of the entire human race stretched out across time. For instance, to the best of our understanding the OT laws Moses gave were not the first social law of their type, but rather the Code of Homerobi was the first we know of, and in fact parts of the OT law are very similar to the Code of Hamerobi. Thus, rather than God originating the ideas with Moses, he allowed mankind the time to invent the idea, then produced an arguably better version for his people. So, the importance of the bible is not necessarily that it is the origin of laws and morality, and of the specific stories it contains, but what the specific versions in the Bible tell us about our relationship with God.

Now, couldn't God maintain the love principle and the free will principle and still have a measure of interference in life? Could he, for instance, alter physics occasionally so that major earth quakes don't happen, yet tectonic activity could still continue to recycle vital nutrients through the environment? Couldn't he prevent hurricanes and yet keep the weather cycles active enough to keep rain patterns and temperatures as hospitable as they are? The answer for all of this could be yes, but for one more issue: if he were to do so, he would be handing out bona fide, scientifically reproducible proof that God exists.

Why would that be a problem? Why not just come out of the closet, stop messing around, and prove to us that he exists? Why make this complex universe with all the thousands of systems that exist that make life even possible for us? Why set it up to take so long to form? Why not just pop it out of his belly button, shine it up, and stand by in the sky to physically keep things running and as a visual proof of his existence to all?

If both the love and free will principles are correct, along with the battle against evil, then I think God has a certain "moral" obligation (again, I'm defining God's moral code according to the purpose of his creation), perhaps even a logical limitation, to avoid instances which can scientifically (consistently and repeatable) prove his existence. Miracles, instances of non-repeatable, personal experience to the individual with the purpose of increasing that person's love and trust in him, yes. This is because his goal is that people would choose out of love to trust in him, not merely to trust in him out of intellectual obligation. If you think about it, if he appeared in the sky everyday, or by your side each day to say hi, would that make you seek after him with a passionate love, or would it be commonplace if not creepy? And even if you would, would everyone? Would you feel obligated to believe if the God of the universe proved his existence to you, or would you instantly fall deeply in love with him just because he exists? For me, the process of falling in love with him has been through the search, the small personal experiences gleaned over years of longing. And being infinite, I am constantly amazed at new aspects of his love that have never occurred to me before.

So, to flush that out a little more, I am in fact saying that when God devised the creation of the world, he recognized that there would be great losses and suffering as a result. People would refuse to love him, would reject him, and would create great suffering for others. Yet somehow he thought the end result would be well worth the result, that sharing his glory and beauty in a freely chosen love relationship with those of us who believe would be worth the cost to those who reject him. He's kind of a bastard in that respect, right? It is almost as if he doesn't see humanity quite as human, or perhaps not quite yet as human. We are more like animals, or machines, at least until we begin the process of choosing to love him. Once we make that choice, he begins the work of making us perfect, yet even this is done only through our willingness and desire for him. Those who don't choose him, he may very well see like defective products. In fact, in many cases the word we translate to "hell" is "gehenna," which is basically the name given to a city garbage dump.

I'll have to get back to the question of hell later, as that is perhaps one of the most difficult issues in the bible, but I want to just get this darn thing posted. XP

Yet another aspect of these limitations on God, is that he limits his influence over the bible to the purely theological. In other words, while I do believe you can find inconsistencies which are unimportant to a relationship with God (like the 300 killed vs the 800 killed), there will be no true inconsistency in scriptures which are important to understanding a relationship with God. Perceived inconsistencies will simply require a greater degree of work to understand how they create a consistent model of God and our relationship with him. This limitation is an outgrowth of the maturing principle of allowing humanity the chance to develop on their own (giving as much of the care of the scriptures as possible into the hands of mankind), but also so that the bible could not be demonstrably miraculous. In other words, if there was no inconsistencies, that would almost be more suspicious then if there are none. No errors might just as well encourage the belief that the entire bible was planned out and faked, as it would that it is obvious evidence of God producing the text.

Now, let me acknowledge that much of the above can easily be taken as a theory that allows the believer to avoid the question without having any universally testable proof. In other words, it seems to disregard blatant examples of the Christian God failing to be a rational belief through the use of some fancy philosophical theories. My response to this is that, yes, if you haven't experienced God, the following is not evidence for God's existence, however, if the arguments are sound, which I believe they are, then this IS a theory that explains how their could be a God and yet all the naturalistic evidence points otherwise. So, even if you are not convinced that God exists, I hope this will convince you it is at least possible that the God of the Bible could exist, that there is no logical, experiential, or moral contradiction. That is my goal at least. And if God is possible, that is an excellent reason to try what I call a God experiment: just ask him to reveal himself to you in a way that would allow you to build a relationship with him. Ask him to build a relationship with you, and I think he will. Though it might take some time. XP

Redafro wrote: The problem seems to lie in part in the intuition of the believer that if God created us for a purpose or set of purposes, he is in some ways justified in judging us evil if we willfully reject those purposes, yet if we humans were to create a human-like individual or race, we would not be justified in judging them if they didn't fulfill purposes we made them for WHICH do not conform to the ethics of humanism. All that to say, we can't play God, but God can. Why? Is it just a "might makes right" argument or a "I say it's good, so it's good" argument?

Your argument just goes to show that according to the ethics of most humans, what God is doing is not just. One might want to circumvent this by saying that there is a separate Godly ethics, but that doesn't change things:

"A has a moral code. A creates B to do things contrary to A's moral code. B does not do these things according to B's own moral code. A is judgemental towards B."

How does this even make sense? Why would you create B to do something outside your own moral code? Why would you judge B for complying to your own standards? Let us change the scenario just a tiny bit:

"A has a moral code. A creates B to do things contrary to A's moral code. B does not do these things according to A's moral code. A is judgemental towards B."

Again, A's position is as asinine, for exactly the same reasons. So it isn't that God's position in that scenario isn't just: it is absurd.

I don't think so. I think, rather, that if we look through all the ideas we see that there is a logical system in it, one that justifies the apparent contradictions between such things as, for example, God's maximal benevolence and the fact that we don't experience ONLY benevolence, like stubbing our toe, or getting sent to hell.

Are you really going to argue that a thing that isn't always benevolent, is omnibenevolent? That argument sounds self-contradictory.

And ironically, this law seems to favor the woman, because technically a woman could fake a rape and accuse the man she wants to marry...

Not really: the woman and the man have to be seen having sex together. At the very least seduction is needed for that. Not that I want to further pursue this rape discussion further because:

I prefer to cut through all the old testament examples, which I can and may defend, and go straight to what is on the heart of most modern people: why didn't God give the people of the OT our modern concepts of morality and universality of race and gender if he really is good? In other words, instead of that law protecting the socially powerless raped woman, why not socially empower women?

... which is obviously twisted and is just another example of how there simply CANNOT BE a perfect legal code. It's not possible even for a perfect God because even if God were to write out an every case scenario that WAS perfect, mankind would not be able to remember and catalog it all, at least not before the advent of computers. That before almost any other argument is why the OT laws are not MORAL laws, but are social laws for a certain period of time, born to fulfill a purpose until the time was right for Christ's birth. And there is much more to be said about that, but I'll switch gears now.

Perfect beings create perfect things, hence, were God to create a law it would be perfect and mankind would have to deal with it, however long it was, and why wouldn't they: it would be obvious it is right and just if it is perfect.

The next purpose I think is what I'll call the free will principle -- --: our ability to determine what is right or wrong, good or bad for ourselves in any given situation. This is what the story of the fall is about: not merely knowledge, which it seems clear Adam at least was using as he named the animals -- -- . It was never merely knowledge God was against, but the knowledge of Good and Evil. In other words, they, the limited beings, determined for themselves what is good rather than checking with the infinite being for the ultimate perspective on good and evil. So, from the beginning, the point seems to be whether or not people would choose the Ultimate Good which is embodied in God, or whether we would choose our own way. The story of Adam and Eve, regardless if it is a literal event or not, is a symbol that eventually, in spite of our intentions, we will decide to do something without clearing it with the big guy.

So, God intended us to be the loving zombies after all, we just hacked the system and ate from the tree?

Another moral obligation that the limitations of God's principles of love and free will produce would be, I would argue, what I will call the maturing principle, which is to allow humanity as a whole the chance to develop as much of their culture, morality and other achievements as possible. This is akin to letting a child try and fail by themselves instead of doing everything for them. Only in this case, God sees it as a work of the entire human race stretched out across time. For instance, to the best of our understanding the OT laws Moses gave were not the first social law of their type, but rather the Code of Homerobi was the first we know of, and in fact parts of the OT law are very similar to the Code of Hamerobi. Thus, rather than God originating the ideas with Moses, he allowed mankind the time to invent the idea, then produced an arguably better version for his people. So, the importance of the bible is not necessarily that it is the origin of laws and morality, and of the specific stories it contains, but what the specific versions in the Bible tell us about our relationship with God.

So what was the point of these earlier works by other cultures then, if God was always to say "Ha-ha! Screw your development, I've got better ones! Here take these!" Further, if the Bible is to tell us about our relationship with God, then why are opinions derived from it so diverse and different?

Now, couldn't God maintain the love principle and the free will principle and still have a measure of interference in life? Could he, for instance, alter physics occasionally so that major earth quakes don't happen, yet tectonic activity could still continue to recycle vital nutrients through the environment? Couldn't he prevent hurricanes and yet keep the weather cycles active enough to keep rain patterns and temperatures as hospitable as they are? The answer for all of this could be yes, but for one more issue: if he were to do so, he would be handing out bona fide, scientifically reproducible proof that God exists.

If that happened every time, scientist would take that as a natural mechanism and analyse it accordingly. If it really did break the laws of physics (it wouldn't have to), scientists couldn't figure it out but would keep trying. And really, if earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tidal waves or even conflagrations wouldn't occur, then how is that evidence of anything? Who would even notice that inconceivably horrible thing X wasn't happening?

This argument doesn't support either viewpoint though: how many hazards might God actively be saving us from? I guess we will never know if he doesn't tell us. Maybe he is the reason of the lack of gamma ray bursts towards our direction? Or the lack of nearby supernova? We have no reason to suppose it is so, but it is a possible thing he might be doing if he existed.

If you think about it, if he appeared in the sky everyday, or by your side each day to say hi, would that make you seek after him with a passionate love, or would it be commonplace if not creepy? And even if you would, would everyone? Would you feel obligated to believe if the God of the universe proved his existence to you, or would you instantly fall deeply in love with him just because he exists?

If I am proven something, I believe it. To do otherwise would be dishonest - not to mention stupid since the being apparently dislikes lying. Of course, I am not obligated to love him; I believe Hitler existed as well but I certainly don't love him. His actions would determine that, like they do with all others around me.

I don't just automatically love my parents either, my love is dependant on the intricate favours we do to each other and the time we spend together and how we spend it. Personally, if thing were going like they are now, I don't know if I could dismiss as "one of God's little quirks", like he was "that grumpy Uncle Steve that isn't very nice".

So, to flush that out a little more, I am in fact saying that when God devised the creation of the world, he recognized that there would be great losses and suffering as a result. People would refuse to love him, would reject him, and would create great suffering for others. Yet somehow he thought the end result would be well worth the result, that sharing his glory and beauty in a freely chosen love relationship with those of us who believe would be worth the cost to those who reject him. He's kind of a bastard in that respect, right? It is almost as if he doesn't see humanity quite as human, or perhaps not quite yet as human. We are more like animals, or machines, at least until we begin the process of choosing to love him. Once we make that choice, he begins the work of making us perfect, yet even this is done only through our willingness and desire for him. Those who don't choose him, he may very well see like defective products. In fact, in many cases the word we translate to "hell" is "gehenna," which is basically the name given to a city garbage dump.

As a thought it is rather macabre, but ok. Now we have "A makes B. B's objective is do X, but he will often do Y by design. A likes X but dislikes Y. A judges all instances of B making Y." At least it is not stupid. It is, however, not a very nice thing to do, since the fault is as much his as it is B's.

Yet another aspect of these limitations on God, is that he limits his influence over the bible to the purely theological. In other words, while I do believe you can find inconsistencies which are unimportant to a relationship with God (like the 300 killed vs the 800 killed), there will be no true inconsistency in scriptures which are important to understanding a relationship with God. Perceived inconsistencies will simply require a greater degree of work to understand how they create a consistent model of God and our relationship with him. This limitation is an outgrowth of the maturing principle of allowing humanity the chance to develop on their own (giving as much of the care of the scriptures as possible into the hands of mankind), but also so that the bible could not be demonstrably miraculous. In other words, if there was no inconsistencies, that would almost be more suspicious then if there are none. No errors might just as well encourage the belief that the entire bible was planned out and faked, as it would that it is obvious evidence of God producing the text.

So your argument is that the Bible has mistakes so that God, who as perfect couldn't make a mistake, is easier to believe in? Isn't it easier to believe that a book was written by God, if it has no contradictions at any level? If a perfect God were to write a book, or dictate it more accurately, he would be able to do that - no he'd necessarily do that. Humans could conceivably with enough effort do that but the human mind has its limitations and shortcomings and easily creates contradictions.

PS. It's really rather late, so I might've unfairly left issues unresolved.

Interesting. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstandings I need to clarify. I was afraid that would happen with me cutting out two of the more crucial concepts that I was having trouble defining, but I didn't want to delay any longer. At any rater, at least we are discussing, but I apologize for not being clearer.

For one thing, you seem to be under the impression on several of your points that I am trying to create a proof of God's existence, or that I think God is necessarily interested in proving himself. I'm not, and I don't think he is. I've tried to be clear about that, but it is a major paradigm shift from the line of argumentation most Christians use, so I can understand if you misunderstood me or forgot my purpose.

Your argument just goes to show that according to the ethics of most humans, what God is doing is not just.

Perhaps people do think he is unjust, but that does not mean he is. Perhaps we need to deal with some examples, because I'm not sure I follow your thinking. You've brought up God commanding people to do horrible things before, but help me understand what you mean by that. All the occurrences of God commanding his people to wipe another group out are instances where: 1. the people were highly immoral, practicing child sacrifice and other evils and God was using his people to judge them, 2. many instances where it seems clear that God saying "kill them all" were hyperbole (like a winning football team saying "we murdered them!") because in later sections of the bible those people groups are still around. But furthermore, your examples:

"A has a moral code. A creates B to do things contrary to A's moral code. B does not do these things according to B's own moral code. A is judgemental towards B."

How does this even make sense?

Yeah, it doesn't, and I never claimed that. It would be more like:

"A has moral code X. A creates B with the capacity to reject moral code X. B does choose to reject moral code X. A is judgmental towards B."

Again, I don't quite understand how you are defining the horrible things he commands others to do, but lets say it is killing. The scriptures command against murder, or the unjust killing of someone. God commands a just war against murderous nations in a few instances, but for the most part does not command wars or killing, and does not condone it when it happens. Perhaps the issue we need to next discuss is justice, because I don't see the problem in this. So, is it unjust for God to be the judge? Is it unjust when humans are?

Are you really going to argue that a thing that isn't always benevolent, is omnibenevolent? That argument sounds self-contradictory.

Perhaps I have not been clear. I'm attempting to add limitations to a definition. Omni means something like "unlimited," or "all," right? When I say that God is omnibenevolent as well as several other omnis, like justice, power, knowledge, etc, as well as to say that he is these things in so far as it is logically possible to be so, I'm saying that he never gets tired of being benevolent, is benevolent in every possible way he can be, and that he has the capacity to be benevolent any time he can be benevolent. I also mean that where, for example, his justice is at odds with his benevolence, he must not be benevolent. However, I've also been building a case for a purpose he has that also limits his benevolence and is why he is not clearly and always benevolent to us. I've tried to admit that this can be confusing as it can appear he is not benevolent at all (although you've actually strengthened this argument, as I'll point out later).

So, yes, I personally don't find that self-contradictory, just more complicated then a quick glance can understand. Here is an example: If I could make a painting that was infinitely large in two dimensions (perhaps somewhere in the subnet XD) and were somehow able to paint all but 1 square inch of that canvas a uniform red, I believe I would be justified in calling that canvas omni-red except for one square inch. This is how I am using the idea of omni-benevolence with God: he has an infinite complicity for benevolence, except for the limited areas where his benevolence contradicts his purposes and other characteristics. It is still an infinite capacity if there are some limits, like saying "I have an infinite amount of all coins, except for pennies."

Not really: the woman and the man have to be seen having sex together. At the very least seduction is needed for that. Not that I want to further pursue this rape discussion further

So, it's fine that we don't pursue this further, but I was referring to Deuteronomy 22:25 and the surrounding texts, which actually don't say they have to be caught in the act. The hole context seems to imply that this happens when no one is around to catch them because the previous verses say that if she doesn't scream in a city, she is to be judged. If your out in the middle of no where, no one is there to discover the crime, so the woman has to bring her case before the community. But moving on...

Perfect beings create perfect things, hence, were God to create a law it would be perfect and mankind would have to deal with it, however long it was, and why wouldn't they: it would be obvious it is right and just if it is perfect.

Yes, a perfect God creates things perfectly, but according to his own purpose, and not necessarily how we would want things done (in fact, as we are imperfect, it becomes very probable he won't create things the way we think they should be made). This whole argument has been about why God has chosen to limit himself to certain activities because of his purpose in making humanity. I've been trying to make the argument that God's purpose was to set up a scenario in which individuals with free will (in the OT it would be more about the society as a whole) will choose to love God because they choose to, not necessarily because of evidence or fear, though these things could help.

So, God intended us to be the loving zombies after all, we just hacked the system and ate from the tree?

No. If he intended that there wouldn't be a tree. We didn't hack the system; that implies we made it possible for us to have a choice. We didn't, he did, and we choose the tree over him all the time.

So what was the point of these earlier works by other cultures then, if God was always to say "Ha-ha! Screw your development, I've got better ones! Here take these!"

If your son is attempting to build a tree house, you might let him get as far as he can on his own so he has the experience of doing so, of striving forward on his own, and then you might intervene at some point by saying something like, "this is good, but it is unsafe here, and you can do this better if you do it this way." This way, your son has the opportunity to grow on his own while still benefiting from your experience. This is kind of the whole point of this model I'm developing. It's not a "ha-ha," it's a "your close son, but this is what you need to take it to the next level."

Further, if the Bible is to tell us about our relationship with God, then why are opinions derived from it so diverse and different

There are all kinds of reasons, number one among them being that we are limited and fail to grasp truth when we see it, and that we let our own bias and motivations color our thinking. Understanding the bible is, to me, a process not merely of reading it, but of asking God and others about it. It's a process, and we get parts of it wrong all the time. The biggest enemy to our understanding of the bible is arrogance: saying "I've got the best explanation." I try not to act that way, but I'm probably as guilty as anyone else.

If that happened every time, scientist would take that as a natural mechanism and analyse it accordingly. If it really did break the laws of physics (it wouldn't have to), scientists couldn't figure it out but would keep trying. And really, if earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tidal waves or even conflagrations wouldn't occur, then how is that evidence of anything? Who would even notice that inconceivably horrible thing X wasn't happening?

This argument doesn't support either viewpoint though: how many hazards might God actively be saving us from? I guess we will never know if he doesn't tell us. Maybe he is the reason of the lack of gamma ray bursts towards our direction? Or the lack of nearby supernova? We have no reason to suppose it is so, but it is a possible thing he might be doing if he existed.

That is a fantastic point. Your demonstrating several things here. One is the blindness of the naturalistic perspective to any act of God; naturalistic science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God because it assumes he is not the cause.
The main point of my argument was, however, in response to the common argument that if God where omnibenevolent there wouldn't be natural disasters at all. Your also showing some of the interesting lines between miracles and natural events. I really don't know what is meant by "break the laws of physics." Air planes break the law of gravity by using another law that, in the right context, has greater power than the law of gravity. I believe this is exactly how God does miracles: not by breaking anything, but by superseding them.

If I am proven something, I believe it. To do otherwise would be dishonest - not to mention stupid since the being apparently dislikes lying. Of course, I am not obligated to love him; I believe Hitler existed as well but I certainly don't love him. His actions would determine that, like they do with all others around me.
I don't just automatically love my parents either, my love is dependant on the intricate favours we do to each other and the time we spend together and how we spend it. .

Exactly. That has been my point. Not that God obligates love, but that he woos us as it were. My argument here has been that if there is any argument that can justify God's apparent absence, than there are good reasons to try to get to know him. If he responds to you, then you have both your evidence and a growing relationship of love with him.

Personally, if thing were going like they are now, I don't know if I could dismiss as "one of God's little quirks", like he was "that grumpy Uncle Steve that isn't very nice"

Well, as I've been saying, I'm trying to explain why God isn't a grumpy uncle (putting it mildly), though the Hell issue is still ahead...

As a thought it is rather macabre, but ok. Now we have "A makes B. B's objective is do X, but he will often do Y by design. A likes X but dislikes Y. A judges all instances of B making Y." At least it is not stupid. It is, however, not a very nice thing to do, since the fault is as much his as it is B's.

This sounds close, but where are you getting this "by design" idea? Because he has free will? That would be being capable of by design, not being made to do by design. And this too is why it is not necessarily "A's" fault. Maybe it is, but that is a much bigger question: If a designer makes something that can make it's own choices, is it responsible for those choices? In a purely deterministic universe, perhaps the designer is, but how do we establish that being the case, especially with the study of quantum mechanics being what it is? If a father trains his child to do something, and the child fails to accept the training, is that the father's fault?

So your argument is that the Bible has mistakes so that God, who as perfect couldn't make a mistake, is easier to believe in?

Not at all.

Isn't it easier to believe that a book was written by God, if it has no contradictions at any level?

It should be, and might be, but you've missed the point of the whole argument. Like I've said, God isn't trying to prove he exists, but rather is limiting himself in order to maximize a chance at relationship with us.

If a perfect God were to write a book, or dictate it more accurately, he would be able to do that - no he'd necessarily do that.

According to what purpose?

Redafro wrote:You've brought up God commanding people to do horrible things before, but help me understand what you mean by that. All the occurrences of God commanding his people to wipe another group out are instances where: 1. the people were highly immoral, practicing child sacrifice and other evils and God was using his people to judge them, 2. many instances where it seems clear that God saying "kill them all" were hyperbole (like a winning football team saying "we murdered them!") because in later sections of the bible those people groups are still around.

If my memory serves me well, the nations that were killed by the Israelites descend from Kanaan, whose grand crime for being ostracized was seeing Noah naked. This is, to my knowledge, the ultimate reason used to justify the murders (i.e. that's why Abraham got the land for his offspring). This, to me, seems unjust. As for your second one, I don't remember any particular such thing happening, so I can't comment.

Bible also promotes sacrificing animals, which I find disgusting since I find that it was waste and animals do feel pain and distress, if nothing else. I'd say burning grain is equally a waste, but not harmful per se. Then there is circumcision, which I find to be peculiar thing, more than horrible. Then there are various laws of purity that if practiced in pure form make it impossible for lovers to touch each other. Laws that without reason ban homosexuality and punish it and other sexual relationships by death. Perhaps the most horrible is the hypocrisy of all of this killing and "thou shalt not kill".

I am willing to admit that I determine "horrible" purely from my contemporary, personal viewpoint. I am, however, quite confident that many woud agree that those are nothing to be waved away nonchalantly either.

"A has a moral code. A creates B to do things contrary to A's moral code. B does not do these things according to B's own moral code. A is judgemental towards B."

How does this even make sense?

Yeah, it doesn't, and I never claimed that. It would be more like:

I believe you said:

yet if we humans were to create a human-like individual or race, we would not be justified in judging them if they didn't fulfill purposes we made them for WHICH do not conform to the ethics of humanism.

In which scenario: Humans (A) have a moral code (humanism). Humans (A) create human-like individual or race (B) which doesn't conform to their humanism. The race (B) doesn't do that. And then it is questioned if we (A) are judgemental.

Again, I don't quite understand how you are defining the horrible things he commands others to do, but lets say it is killing. The scriptures command against murder, or the unjust killing of someone. God commands a just war against murderous nations in a few instances, but for the most part does not command wars or killing, and does not condone it when it happens. Perhaps the issue we need to next discuss is justice, because I don't see the problem in this. So, is it unjust for God to be the judge? Is it unjust when humans are?

Is it unjust for humans to decide that a particular nation must be massacred? Why, yes, in my opinion it is. Not everybody is evil in a particular nation: there were good and charitable acts in Nazi Germany! To be honest, I oppose capital punishment in general.

Are you really going to argue that a thing that isn't always benevolent, is omnibenevolent? That argument sounds self-contradictory.

Perhaps I have not been clear. I'm attempting to add limitations to a definition. Omni means something like "unlimited," or "all," right? When I say that God is omnibenevolent as well as several other omnis, like justice, power, knowledge, etc, as well as to say that he is these things in so far as it is logically possible to be so, I'm saying that he never gets tired of being benevolent, is benevolent in every possible way he can be, and that he has the capacity to be benevolent any time he can be benevolent. I also mean that where, for example, his justice is at odds with his benevolence, he must not be benevolent. However, I've also been building a case for a purpose he has that also limits his benevolence and is why he is not clearly and always benevolent to us. I've tried to admit that this can be confusing as it can appear he is not benevolent at all (although you've actually strengthened this argument, as I'll point out later).

So, yes, I personally don't find that self-contradictory, just more complicated then a quick glance can understand. Here is an example: If I could make a painting that was infinitely large in two dimensions (perhaps somewhere in the subnet XD) and were somehow able to paint all but 1 square inch of that canvas a uniform red, I believe I would be justified in calling that canvas omni-red except for one square inch. This is how I am using the idea of omni-benevolence with God: he has an infinite complicity for benevolence, except for the limited areas where his benevolence contradicts his purposes and other characteristics. It is still an infinite capacity if there are some limits, like saying "I have an infinite amount of all coins, except for pennies."

I get your argument, but I still think you are misrepresenting the prefix omni. Omni means all, totally, infinitely. You can't just make it almost if you feel like it. I am willing to accept that God is in many respects benevolent, but any limit in his benevolence means that he is not omnibenevolent. Mathematically, sure, ∞-1= ∞, but equally ∞-10^1000= ∞. If you want to take it that way, God could rape and pillage all day and still be omnibenevolent: it isn't a good concept to work on, especially considering the infinity just breaks standard algebra.

Perfect beings create perfect things, hence, were God to create a law it would be perfect and mankind would have to deal with it, however long it was, and why wouldn't they: it would be obvious it is right and just if it is perfect.

Yes, a perfect God creates things perfectly, but according to his own purpose, and not necessarily how we would want things done

If it is perfect, it is. That doesn't change depending on our perspective, surely. I don't see the controversy with a perfect law and free will either. We could break it for our own pleasure just as well.

So, God intended us to be the loving zombies after all, we just hacked the system and ate from the tree?

No. If he intended that there wouldn't be a tree. We didn't hack the system; that implies we made it possible for us to have a choice. We didn't, he did, and we choose the tree over him all the time.

Why then does he tell Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree, as if it was poisonous? And in what sense it is a choice, if they are without knowledge of good and bad? And if they didn't know right from wrong, naked from clothed, were they not exactly that: zombies who believe him? They also believed the snake, but that is rather irrelevant since they couldn't possibly understand the concept that they could be lied to without prior knowledge of good and evil existing.

I really don't know what is meant by "break the laws of physics." Air planes break the law of gravity by using another law that, in the right context, has greater power than the law of gravity. I believe this is exactly how God does miracles: not by breaking anything, but by superseding them.

Air planes don't break the law of gravity: an example of that would be if they magically got left behind as the Earth orbits the Sun i.e. gravity stopped affecting them. Furthermore, planes fly using extensions of the same principle of F=ma. In the case of gravity it just happens to be F=mg, where g can be represented as (GM)/r^2. The same formula can be extrapolated into propulsion, lift, air drag etc.

Exactly. That has been my point. Not that God obligates love, but that he woos us as it were. My argument here has been that if there is any argument that can justify God's apparent absence, than there are good reasons to try to get to know him. If he responds to you, then you have both your evidence and a growing relationship of love with him.

I personally am of the opinion that without evidence, even if a reason could be given why evidence does not present itself, it is better to suspend disbelief rather than belief. After all it is possible to justify lack of evidence for many phenomena that are generally disbelieved, such as ghosts.

As an experiment it is not bad to try and find God, but if one doesn't find him, is it then warranted to stop looking? If a search might take a lifetime, is it a good way to go about things?

This sounds close, but where are you getting this "by design" idea? Because he has free will? That would be being capable of by design, not being made to do by design. And this too is why it is not necessarily "A's" fault. Maybe it is, but that is a much bigger question: If a designer makes something that can make it's own choices, is it responsible for those choices? In a purely deterministic universe, perhaps the designer is, but how do we establish that being the case, especially with the study of quantum mechanics being what it is? If a father trains his child to do something, and the child fails to accept the training, is that the father's fault?

That something isn't to be held accountable for the choices his creation makes, sure, but it isn't in a particular position to judge them himself either. If the father teaches the boy to build bird houses, can he punish for failure to produce a bird house that is to his liking?

Isn't it easier to believe that a book was written by God, if it has no contradictions at any level?

It should be, and might be, but you've missed the point of the whole argument. Like I've said, God isn't trying to prove he exists, but rather is limiting himself in order to maximize a chance at relationship with us.

And I am not seeing how that makes any sense, to be frank. If it easier to believe because of merit X of the Bible, doesn't that work towards the goal of maximize a chance of relationship?

If a perfect God were to write a book, or dictate it more accurately, he would be able to do that - no he'd necessarily do that.

According to what purpose?[/quote]

No particular one, but as you agreed, perfect beings create perfect things.

I might be a while (at least a few days if not a week) responding to most of your points. They are all beginning to point towards areas I haven't finished formulating, and you've also managed to expose an event in the bible I hadn't realized I had glossed over as much as I had. I don't know if that is my failure, or is something that was done by people I learn from, but either way I'll accept the fault of not taking it seriously enough. So, bonus points to you my friend.

I however ask this:

I get your argument, but I still think you are misrepresenting the prefix omni. Omni means all, totally, infinitely. You can't just make it almost if you feel like it. I am willing to accept that God is in many respects benevolent, but any limit in his benevolence means that he is not omnibenevolent. Mathematically, sure, ∞-1= ∞, but equally ∞-10^1000= ∞. If you want to take it that way, God could rape and pillage all day and still be omnibenevolent: it isn't a good concept to work on, especially considering the infinity just breaks standard algebra.

Ahhh... so that is the difficulty we are having here. I'm debating with a mathematician! XD I've not studied infinity in depth, just the Infinity Hotel problem, and discussions in more abstract terms, and I'll gladly bow to your superior knowledge if it seems such. I've often considered dropping the omnis before because I don't like the back tracking you have to do, but I haven't found a good enough reason yet. So if you don't mind, help me out here. I see little difference between my omni-red canvas except for one yellow square problem and the infinite benevolence except where it contradicts God's other capacities and purpose. (Your argument that God could rape and still be benevolent still stands regardless, I just want to understand this aspect of the problem.) I see no contradiction with the omni-red canvas and I feel math should have a way to describe that. Omni-red canvas with one yellow square clearly doesn't equal omni-red canvas without yellow square, so what does math do with that? Or is it the wrong kind of concept for math to be able to handle?

I'll say briefly that I'm beginning to think you are right for a different reason. I'm thinking God's benevolence and justice are better described as perfect and his benevolence ends where his justice begins, while both are limited by his greater plan, and it is his capacity to do (omnipotence) and know (though that too I think might be limited...) that is the source of the "omni" behind these capacities, not that they are omni themselves. Anyway, I know I have tons to explain, so I'll get to it as I can.

Peace yo.

Redafro wrote:I might be a while (at least a few days if not a week) responding to most of your points. They are all beginning to point towards areas I haven't finished formulating, and you've also managed to expose an event in the bible I hadn't realized I had glossed over as much as I had. I don't know if that is my failure, or is something that was done by people I learn from, but either way I'll accept the fault of not taking it seriously enough. So, bonus points to you my friend.

Firstly, thank you for the points. Have a cookie too, since this is interesting. No hurry though, this makes the discussion more manageable.

I however ask this:

I get your argument, but I still think you are misrepresenting the prefix omni. Omni means all, totally, infinitely. You can't just make it almost if you feel like it. I am willing to accept that God is in many respects benevolent, but any limit in his benevolence means that he is not omnibenevolent. Mathematically, sure, ∞-1= ∞, but equally ∞-10^1000= ∞. If you want to take it that way, God could rape and pillage all day and still be omnibenevolent: it isn't a good concept to work on, especially considering the infinity just breaks standard algebra.

Ahhh... so that is the difficulty we are having here. I'm debating with a mathematician! XD I've not studied infinity in depth, just the Infinity Hotel problem, and discussions in more abstract terms, and I'll gladly bow to your superior knowledge if it seems such. I've often considered dropping the omnis before because I don't like the back tracking you have to do, but I haven't found a good enough reason yet. So if you don't mind, help me out here. I see little difference between my omni-red canvas except for one yellow square problem and the infinite benevolence except where it contradicts God's other capacities and purpose. (Your argument that God could rape and still be benevolent still stands regardless, I just want to understand this aspect of the problem.) I see no contradiction with the omni-red canvas and I feel math should have a way to describe that. Omni-red canvas with one yellow square clearly doesn't equal omni-red canvas without yellow square, so what does math do with that? Or is it the wrong kind of concept for math to be able to handle?

Well, I'm not expert at this, since it is over my level, but a set of numbers above real number called hyperreals should be able to handle that problem, since they deal with infinite and infinitesimal numbers. The problem with all mathematical problems involving infinity arise due to infinity not being a real number. For instance one cannot say that ∞-∞=0, because using the two equations I just presented, one would have to accept that 1=10^1000. Hyperreals somehow deal with this, although I'm not certain how.

With real numbers infinity sort of makes stuff disappear when you start using it in the limited way you can. For instance since any real number is necessarily infinitely smaller that infinity, if you take any real number away from infinity you get back to infinity, even if the real number is greater than Graham's number (and Graham's number is so big that completely storing it inside your head would make your head collapse into a black hole). Similarly taking infinity away from a real number gives infinity. Multiplication rules mostly apply, except for 0∞, which is undefined.

I don't think there is a great mathematical difference with the canvas and benevolence problems though. I'd like Vortex, dVan and Theta's insight here really. They know more about this stuff than I do.