You can't please God the way Enoch did without some faith, because those who come to God must (minimally) believe that:
A) God exists, and
B) God is good to people who really look for him.
That's it. The "good news" is so simple that a child can understand it, and so deep that a philosopher can't.
As much as I respect Larry, I have one thing to say : "The Devil is in the details". "God exists" sounds so simple. It's not. Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God. In the absence, ethics are based around pragmatism and as such adaptible. In the presence, ethics are given to us. Look at history. Which case has proven the better approach? I'd rather God not existed, but if he does, I hope he has foregivness for me since I do in fact live by many of his rules - only out of pragmatism. I expect to burn in hell if there is such a thing, though.
As much as I respect Larry, I have one thing to say : "The Devil is in the details". "God exists" sounds so simple. It's not. Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God. In the absence, ethics are based around pragmatism and as such adaptible. In the presence, ethics are given to us. Look at history. Which case has proven the better approach? I'd rather God not existed, but if he does, I hope he has foregivness for me since I do in fact live by many of his rules - only out of pragmatism. I expect to burn in hell if there is such a thing, though.
Being a Christian myself this post is no doubt biased but since you brought up some points and questions I thought I would address them...
You might be interested in studying up on Christian theology since it addresses many of your points. It says God does indeed exist, and he will forgive you regardless of what you have done in the past. Morals (ethics) come from him but living by his rules is not a requirement as you could never "earn your way to heaven" like you would in other religions (Islam, Judaism). Once you are a Christian (and not just in title) you accept the holy spirit which guides you and helps you to avoid evil things. That is a lifelong process which is why many (true) Christians are not perfect...nobody is! And of course, many call theirselves Christians when they really aren't...giving all Christians a bad name. Also many non-Christians think Christianity is a rule(law)-based religion and God just wants to ruin your fun. In reality, it is nothing like that and God simply wants the best for you...nothing less.
Many times agnostics think that God should come down and fix everything, etc. but that doesn't happen. Christian theology states that we are in a fallen world, and due to the fact that we are given free will (ie freedom) God is not going to sit here and be a puppet master. When we die we are judged and that is it. If we believed and trusted in him we will live with him forever, and if we don't, we go to hell. It's not a hard theology to grasp. Furthermore we are told he is just and he will fix all things at the end of the age. So while the world may suck today, it will not be like that for all time.
Also just as an aside... If God exists, he will exist regardless of whether you believe in him or not. But whether you live in paradise or hell does directly depend on whether you believe in him or not. Really, what do you have to lose?
Many times agnostics think that God should come down and fix everything, etc. but that doesn't happen... due to the fact that we are given free will
Generally people say, "God couldn't create a being that both had free will and yet would never choose evil, that's a contradiction in terms."
I then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
If yes, then there's no contradiction, and God would have created beings like that instead of us humans. If no, then how could such a robot be deserving of worship? It might be wise to kowtow to It, but how could it be moral?
Generally people say, "God couldn't create a being that both had free will and yet would never choose evil, that's a contradiction in terms."
Yep
I then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
If yes, then there's no contradiction, and God would have created beings like that instead of us humans. If no, then how could such a robot be deserving of worship? It might be wise to kowtow to It, but how could it be moral?
No we are created like God but He didn't clone himself. He created us with a blank slate.
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
But that's the whole point! Why didn't God create more beings whose 'very nature' was good, who didn't want to do evil? Why not make an Adam and Eve that didn't want to break rules?
The normal anser to this question is, "because they wouldn't have free will". But you yourself just said that God could choose to do evil, but doesn't want to. So either:
A: God has free will, in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil. Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil. After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around. But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
or B: God doesn't have free will. Like I said, a robot.
But that's the whole point! Why didn't God create more beings whose 'very nature' was good, who didn't want to do evil? Why not make an Adam and Eve that didn't want to break rules?
Well apparently that comes with the territory and is just part of the nature of a free will free thinking being is that they could choose to do what God considers moral or they may do something God considers immoral. But if you create a being with a blank slate, then it could go either way could it not?
God has free will, in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil. Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil. After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around. But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
Well this is hard to answer since we know little about God. But I would say if God has always existed and always will (out of time) then he came with both free will and goodness. He didn't have to choose it. He didn't have to develop like we have to. He came as the final end package. But...
God doesn't have free will. Like I said, a robot.
God is omnipotent and anything is possible if he desired it. I've heard people say "Well God could never do this as he is Love, etc.". Nope...that's putting a chain around God. The correct answer is "God WOULD never do this as jhe is Love".
This whole conversation is missing something that might be of interest.
Think of it this way... God can do evil. God can do anything. But god prefers good.
>God has free will,
OK
> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.
OK
> Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil.
Whoah, there. Your logic just took a major blind leap. Use "might" instead of "would", and you'd be doing better. But that means he "might not" have, which kills this argument, doesn't it?
If there is a God, who are you (or I) to assume what his decisions would be in a given circumstance, and what intent might be behind them? We don't know, we can only try to make good guesses.
> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.
Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are. What is good? What is evil? In the total absense of one, is the other truely possible? Maybe for there to be a state considered "good", there has to be a contrasting state of "evil". Combined with a free will to choose either.
And think about what you just said for even a split second... "created free beings that didn't want to evil".
If they were created hardwired to "not want evil", then they have no choice in the matter of decisions between one or the other. But without choice, how does one exercise free will? And if one cannot exercise free will, is one really a free being?
> But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
No, it didn't, but there is no contradiction in that. However, I believe I just pointed out yours.
Consider this... during David's rule in Jerusalem, God got really extremely pissed at David for disobeying the rules he set down for conducting a census. To punish him, God sent a plague raging through the land, killing thousands.
David begged pleaded with him to stop... saying that why would he punish and kill innocent people, when he was the one who did wrong. And that he should be punished instead. His fury waned, and decided that David was right. And he stopped.
This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either. (Which throws a big wrench in the arguement that evil is always the opposite of god's will, which is always good. But that's not my argument.:)
Now that I think of it, that means I believe both you and the person you are arguing with are wrong. Which should also prove that trying to pigeonhole "Christianity" into a single dogma or way of thinking is impossible.
Unless you are God, which I'm going to assume you most definitely are not, since you are arguing that he doesn't exist. If you WERE God, you'd succeed (because he CAN do anything), and probably dissappear with a puff of logic just like Douglas Adams described once.:)
> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.
OK
...
If they were created hardwired to "not want evil", then they have no choice in the matter of decisions between one or the other.
I assume you see the problem there. If God can be both free and never want to do evil, then it isn't a logical contradiction to have "free beings that didn't want to [do] evil".
This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either.
Like 1 Samuel 15:3 [gospelcom.net] and Joshua 10:40 [gospelcom.net], I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling, since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.
> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.
Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are.
"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.
>I assume you see the problem there. If God can be both free and never want to do evil, then it isn't a logical contradiction to have "free beings that didn't want to [do] evil".
That's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is God is both free and doesn't want to do evil, because that just happens to be what he chooses. No-one created God as "not wanting to do evil".
But to create another being "that doesn't want to do evil" doesn't give the being the opportunity to make that choice on their own. Which means they aren't free. So if God creates many free beings, it's very probable that some will choose differently then God does.
>Like 1 Samuel 15:3 [gospelcom.net] and Joshua 10:40 [gospelcom.net], I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling,
I don't think so, really.
>since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.
I think it is a little more complicated then that. I don't think he would ever be wrong in those questions. It's more that often evils and wrongs are neccessary. Especially to teach lessons. Things that would ordinarily be "wrong" and look that way on their face, but are actually more "right" in the long run. Or bring about a more encompassing "right". There is a great chapter in an analysys of the Lord of the Rings (written before the Silmarillion, even) that discusses this seeming paradox. How the defeat of the great evil would not have come about without (and was actually greatly helped by) a lot of the bad things that happened along the way. It's worth a read... if I could only remember the title. It is at home.
>"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.
LOL! Sorry, that's not what I meant at all, but I see your reading of it.:) I was being unneccessarily facetious leading into the next paragraph, and didn't tie it in very well.
What I was aiming at in the following paragraph was the idea that for good to exist, evil has to be there too. The whole ying/yang deal. And that the relationship between good and evil isn't always completely black&white, as mentioned above. Your logic game (if-then/else statements, etc... don't be offended by me calling it a game; I do it all the time myself and just happen to call it that) seemed oversimplified and didn't account for that very well. This was me trying to poke fun at that, but missing.:)
"God must be an automaton, because if he had free will he would have created free beings that couldn't choose to do bad." That's how it reads to me.:)
But that's the whole point! Why didn't God create more beings whose 'very nature' was good, who didn't want to do evil? Why not make an Adam and Eve that didn't want to break rules?
They didn't want to break the rules; they wanted to make their own rules.
This is a subtle point that I think most (professed) Christians don't grasp... the original sin was not eating the apple (or whatever fruit it was... the Bible doesn't actually say) or sex (as some people try to claim) but rebellion.
Perhaps I can explain this a little clearer:
God created humans with free will. That means that we can make our own choices as to whether we want to do good or do evil. Adam and Eve were created perfect, meaning that their inclination was toward good and, if they chose, they could have lived their entire lives without ever doing anything evil.
Eve was deceived. The devil told her that, if she did what God had prohibited, she could "become like God, knowing good and bad" -- in essence, this meant that she could either accept the morality and ethics she had been given by God, or she could reject them and choose for herself what was good and what was evil. She made the decision to reject God and make her own choices. Adam was not deceived, but he made the conscious choice to join Eve's side and decide for himself, rather than depending on God for answers.
This left an interesting dilemma: How could anyone know, anyway, what was good and what was evil? Sure, God said this was right and that wasn't, but how could it be proven? This is the most important question in the universe, something we call the issue of universal soverignty: the question of whether God has the right to be soverign, to make the rules, or whether we have the right to make our own rules.
The only way to prove which set of beliefs (or rules) was correct would be to allow each to be tested, and then to compare the results. So God set up an experiment (in which he already knew the outcome, but the purpose is to convince Satan, all the other spirit beings, and us):
He set a limit of time in which we could all make our own decisions. He would make sure that, at any given time, there would always be at least some small group of people who would be doing things according to His will (the control group, if you would), but he did not mandate which ones; everyone would be free to either decide for themselves or else align themselves with God. By the end of the set period of time, the evidence would be clear as to which choice was correct.
This is the only way that the issue could be settled once and for all, and this explains why God does not prevent bad things from happening, even to good people: if he were to prevent people from experiencing the consequences of their (and even others') mistakes, the experiment would be void.
After the experiment is complete, God has the power to restore everything that was lost: renew the earth and the physical universe, heal the physical, emotional, and mental damage among humans, and even bring back to life those that died innocent.
Now, I understand that not everyone will agree with me. You have the right to make your own choice, and I won't (and can't!) abridge that. But I didn't just make this up off the top of my head: this is the result of a lot of deep and careful Bible study. If you want to know why I believe what I do, or want to know how I can reconcile these beliefs with science, history, etc. (and I can, quite to my satisfaction) I'd be happy to explain, to the best of my ability.
...the issue of universal soverignty: the question of whether God has the right to be soverign, to make the rules, or whether we have the right to make our own rules.
I don't think that's phrased well. The notion of God "making" the rules runs smack into the Euthyphro Problem [friesian.com] I alluded to in another post. If God's rules are arbitrary, then we simply have the case of "might makes right", the biggest bully on the block gets to make the rules.
On the other hand, if there's something about the rules that are inherently good, then that's something that's not under God's control (otherwise we'd be smack dab in the middle of the former case). God recognizes what's good, It doesn't make the good good.
So, which is it? The Golden Rule ("He who has the gold [power] makes the rules"); or, the rules are just out there, independent of God, and "soverignty" doesn't enter into it?
Now, there's still the possibility that God acts as an oracle, perfectly recognizing what's good and relaying it to us, but as I said, "soverignty" isn't relevant. And in the case of your experiment hypothesis, why not create beings that share the same perfect recognition of, and apparently approval for, good? Why wouldn't that be the best course of action?
If God's rules are arbitrary, then we simply have the case of "might makes right", the biggest bully on the block gets to make the rules.
On the other hand, if there's something about the rules that are inherently good, then that's something that's not under God's control.
I think you miss the point. By definition, God's rules would be good, not arbitrary. There are two reasons: First, since he made the universe, he clearly knows the best way for it to work. Second, since God is an all-wise being (okay, some may diagree, but that's pretty much a given if you believe in a God with the ability to create the universe as we know it) then any rule he makes would be the epitome of wisdom.
To put it another way: God recognizes what's good because he created the underlying structure of everything in the universe -- and the rules are a function of that.
why not create beings that share the same perfect recognition of, and apparently approval for, good? Why wouldn't that be the best course of action?
Two reasons: first, see above. God is the creator; by definition, his creations could not be equal to him, and this means that we could never have as complete a grasp of the complex interrelationships that make up the universe. Second (in a way this is a corollary of the first point), to know completely what choice is best in all instances would imply a way to foreknow the future. God can do this, since he created the space-time fabric of the universe and is therefore obviously not bound by it; we cannot.
Your question then becomes: why did God create the universe in such a way that his creations within it could never be able to make perfect decisions without him? I would argue that the answer is that there was no other way. At this point, however, we have reached a level of such hypothetical esotericism that I don't there's any way we can, as humans, completely understand why.
In a rather roundabout way, that brings us back again to the subject of faith. At some point, you will always reach a gap between the two mountains of evidence, and you will have to jump. In some cases the gap is small, and you can stand with one foot on either side, but such vantages are unstable and often in time collapse either to one side or the other. In the end, it simply comes down to choice... and as someone once said, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
By definition, God's rules would be good, not arbitrary. There are two reasons: First, since he made the universe, he clearly knows the best way for it to work.
What about a God that creates a universe and then perversely gives rules to the inhabitants that are ill-suited for that universe, for Its own amusement? I don't think you can get away with that "by definition".
God is an all-wise being... any rule he makes would be the epitome of wisdom.
A theist friend of mine wants to write an evolutionary ethics simulator that he thinks would arrive at things like the Golden Rule and such. Why couldn't a creator of our universe have similar goals in mind - for us to derive our own ethics? More generally, why would a creator necessarily be perfectly wise? Why not just finitely but greatly wise?
Moreover, if such a creator is so greatly superior to us, how could we know anything about It? I mean, even if It told us about Itself, how could we trust that information? It could be fooling us, or not giving us a complete picture. I'm sure a lot of sheep have a pretty worshipful view of their shepherd, and lots of evidence that they are well cared for... until they get to the slaughterhouse.
God is the creator; by definition, his creations could not be equal to him
Creations surpass their creators in specific capacities all the time. That's why we make the class of creations called "tools". None of the creators of Deep Blue could have beat Kasparov at chess, but their creation did. Again I think you'll need to justfity that "by definition".
God recognizes what's good because he created the underlying structure of everything in the universe -- and the rules are a function of that.
Now this is interesting - I haven't run into too many theists who've realized this way of deriving ethics. Like a chessboard has certain rules of operation, and our desire to win means that certain strategies are better than others. Sacrificing your queen early on is almost never a wise move, for example.
There are physical rules that govern how our universe operates, and from our desires we can derive what strategies are best for achieving them.
Of course, this means that we don't need God as a law-giver (soverignty and authority don't matter to what's ethical or not), only perhaps as a law-relayer. And that has yet to be established.
...to know completely what choice is best in all instances would imply a way to foreknow the future.
Why couldn't we be created so that we could see the full four-dimensional structure of space-time? Again, justification is needed.
I would argue that the answer is that there was no other way. At this point, however, we have reached a level of such hypothetical esotericism that I don't there's any way we can, as humans, completely understand why...that brings us back again to the subject of faith
Well, as C.S. Lewis said, faith is having the courage of your convictions, being able to stick to what you've determined is right in the face of adversity (like not panicking when the anaesthesiologist drops the mask on your face; you've already decided that the surgery is the best course of action).
Faith is not believing in something depsite what your judgement tells you. And my best judgement is that no theist point of view that I've come across holds up.
> then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
By saying God is all good, and thus would only perform good acts, you are essentially saying that He has no free will. He cannot choose from a selection of possibilities, he must always choose the good choice, otherwise He is not all good. One or the other.
By saying God is all good, and thus would only perform good acts, you are essentially saying that He has no free will. He cannot choose from a selection of possibilities, he must always choose the good choice, otherwise He is not all good. One or the other.
You're assuming that there is only ever one choice which is good. Doing good is a creative act, and creativity has infinite possibilities.
I am not assuming it. There are many situations which have multiple "evil/bad" choices, and only one good choice. I need only provide a counter-example to disprove the assertion that God has free will and is all-good.
Providing a counterexample would only demonstrate that in one particular situation God is constrained (by His all-good nature) to act in a particular way. But remember that God's all-good nature is itself a choice.
I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.
-- Oscar Wilde
Interesting point about Christianity (Score:5, Interesting)
As much as I respect Larry, I have one thing to say : "The Devil is in the details". "God exists" sounds so simple. It's not. Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God. In the absence, ethics are based around pragmatism and as such adaptible. In the presence, ethics are given to us. Look at history. Which case has proven the better approach? I'd rather God not existed, but if he does, I hope he has foregivness for me since I do in fact live by many of his rules - only out of pragmatism. I expect to burn in hell if there is such a thing, though.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Being a Christian myself this post is no doubt biased but since you brought up some points and questions I thought I would address them...
You might be interested in studying up on Christian theology since it addresses many of your points. It says God does indeed exist, and he will forgive you regardless of what you have done in the past. Morals (ethics) come from him but living by his rules is not a requirement as you could never "earn your way to heaven" like you would in other religions (Islam, Judaism). Once you are a Christian (and not just in title) you accept the holy spirit which guides you and helps you to avoid evil things. That is a lifelong process which is why many (true) Christians are not perfect...nobody is! And of course, many call theirselves Christians when they really aren't...giving all Christians a bad name. Also many non-Christians think Christianity is a rule(law)-based religion and God just wants to ruin your fun. In reality, it is nothing like that and God simply wants the best for you...nothing less.
Many times agnostics think that God should come down and fix everything, etc. but that doesn't happen. Christian theology states that we are in a fallen world, and due to the fact that we are given free will (ie freedom) God is not going to sit here and be a puppet master. When we die we are judged and that is it. If we believed and trusted in him we will live with him forever, and if we don't, we go to hell. It's not a hard theology to grasp. Furthermore we are told he is just and he will fix all things at the end of the age. So while the world may suck today, it will not be like that for all time.
Also just as an aside... If God exists, he will exist regardless of whether you believe in him or not. But whether you live in paradise or hell does directly depend on whether you believe in him or not. Really, what do you have to lose?
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Generally people say, "God couldn't create a being that both had free will and yet would never choose evil, that's a contradiction in terms."
I then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
If yes, then there's no contradiction, and God would have created beings like that instead of us humans. If no, then how could such a robot be deserving of worship? It might be wise to kowtow to It, but how could it be moral?
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep
I then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
If yes, then there's no contradiction, and God would have created beings like that instead of us humans. If no, then how could such a robot be deserving of worship? It might be wise to kowtow to It, but how could it be moral?
No we are created like God but He didn't clone himself. He created us with a blank slate.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
But that's the whole point! Why didn't God create more beings whose 'very nature' was good, who didn't want to do evil? Why not make an Adam and Eve that didn't want to break rules?
The normal anser to this question is, "because they wouldn't have free will". But you yourself just said that God could choose to do evil, but doesn't want to. So either:
- A: God has free will, in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil. Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil. After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around. But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
- or B: God doesn't have free will. Like I said, a robot.
How can I make this any clearer?Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Well apparently that comes with the territory and is just part of the nature of a free will free thinking being is that they could choose to do what God considers moral or they may do something God considers immoral. But if you create a being with a blank slate, then it could go either way could it not?
God has free will, in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil. Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil. After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around. But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
Well this is hard to answer since we know little about God. But I would say if God has always existed and always will (out of time) then he came with both free will and goodness. He didn't have to choose it. He didn't have to develop like we have to. He came as the final end package. But...
God doesn't have free will. Like I said, a robot.
God is omnipotent and anything is possible if he desired it. I've heard people say "Well God could never do this as he is Love, etc.". Nope...that's putting a chain around God. The correct answer is "God WOULD never do this as jhe is Love".
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Think of it this way... God can do evil. God can do anything. But god prefers good.
>God has free will,
OK
> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.
OK
> Therefore, God would have created free beings that didn't want to evil.
Whoah, there. Your logic just took a major blind leap. Use "might" instead of "would", and you'd be doing better. But that means he "might not" have, which kills this argument, doesn't it?
If there is a God, who are you (or I) to assume what his decisions would be in a given circumstance, and what intent might be behind them? We don't know, we can only try to make good guesses.
> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.
Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are. What is good? What is evil? In the total absense of one, is the other truely possible? Maybe for there to be a state considered "good", there has to be a contrasting state of "evil". Combined with a free will to choose either.
And think about what you just said for even a split second... "created free beings that didn't want to evil".
If they were created hardwired to "not want evil", then they have no choice in the matter of decisions between one or the other. But without choice, how does one exercise free will? And if one cannot exercise free will, is one really a free being?
> But It didn't, so we have a contradiction.
No, it didn't, but there is no contradiction in that. However, I believe I just pointed out yours.
Consider this... during David's rule in Jerusalem, God got really extremely pissed at David for disobeying the rules he set down for conducting a census. To punish him, God sent a plague raging through the land, killing thousands.
David begged pleaded with him to stop... saying that why would he punish and kill innocent people, when he was the one who did wrong. And that he should be punished instead. His fury waned, and decided that David was right. And he stopped.
This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either. (Which throws a big wrench in the arguement that evil is always the opposite of god's will, which is always good. But that's not my argument.
Now that I think of it, that means I believe both you and the person you are arguing with are wrong. Which should also prove that trying to pigeonhole "Christianity" into a single dogma or way of thinking is impossible.
Unless you are God, which I'm going to assume you most definitely are not, since you are arguing that he doesn't exist. If you WERE God, you'd succeed (because he CAN do anything), and probably dissappear with a puff of logic just like Douglas Adams described once.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
OK
> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.
OK
I assume you see the problem there. If God can be both free and never want to do evil, then it isn't a logical contradiction to have "free beings that didn't want to [do] evil".
This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either.
Like 1 Samuel 15:3 [gospelcom.net] and Joshua 10:40 [gospelcom.net], I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling, since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.
> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.
Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are.
"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
That's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is God is both free and doesn't want to do evil, because that just happens to be what he chooses. No-one created God as "not wanting to do evil".
But to create another being "that doesn't want to do evil" doesn't give the being the opportunity to make that choice on their own. Which means they aren't free. So if God creates many free beings, it's very probable that some will choose differently then God does.
>Like 1 Samuel 15:3 [gospelcom.net] and Joshua 10:40 [gospelcom.net], I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling,
I don't think so, really.
>since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.
I think it is a little more complicated then that. I don't think he would ever be wrong in those questions. It's more that often evils and wrongs are neccessary. Especially to teach lessons. Things that would ordinarily be "wrong" and look that way on their face, but are actually more "right" in the long run. Or bring about a more encompassing "right". There is a great chapter in an analysys of the Lord of the Rings (written before the Silmarillion, even) that discusses this seeming paradox. How the defeat of the great evil would not have come about without (and was actually greatly helped by) a lot of the bad things that happened along the way. It's worth a read... if I could only remember the title. It is at home.
>"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.
LOL! Sorry, that's not what I meant at all, but I see your reading of it.
What I was aiming at in the following paragraph was the idea that for good to exist, evil has to be there too. The whole ying/yang deal. And that the relationship between good and evil isn't always completely black&white, as mentioned above. Your logic game (if-then/else statements, etc... don't be offended by me calling it a game; I do it all the time myself and just happen to call it that) seemed oversimplified and didn't account for that very well. This was me trying to poke fun at that, but missing.
"God must be an automaton, because if he had free will he would have created free beings that couldn't choose to do bad." That's how it reads to me.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
This is a subtle point that I think most (professed) Christians don't grasp... the original sin was not eating the apple (or whatever fruit it was... the Bible doesn't actually say) or sex (as some people try to claim) but rebellion.
Perhaps I can explain this a little clearer:
God created humans with free will. That means that we can make our own choices as to whether we want to do good or do evil. Adam and Eve were created perfect, meaning that their inclination was toward good and, if they chose, they could have lived their entire lives without ever doing anything evil.
Eve was deceived. The devil told her that, if she did what God had prohibited, she could "become like God, knowing good and bad" -- in essence, this meant that she could either accept the morality and ethics she had been given by God, or she could reject them and choose for herself what was good and what was evil. She made the decision to reject God and make her own choices. Adam was not deceived, but he made the conscious choice to join Eve's side and decide for himself, rather than depending on God for answers.
This left an interesting dilemma: How could anyone know, anyway, what was good and what was evil? Sure, God said this was right and that wasn't, but how could it be proven? This is the most important question in the universe, something we call the issue of universal soverignty: the question of whether God has the right to be soverign, to make the rules, or whether we have the right to make our own rules.
The only way to prove which set of beliefs (or rules) was correct would be to allow each to be tested, and then to compare the results. So God set up an experiment (in which he already knew the outcome, but the purpose is to convince Satan, all the other spirit beings, and us):
He set a limit of time in which we could all make our own decisions. He would make sure that, at any given time, there would always be at least some small group of people who would be doing things according to His will (the control group, if you would), but he did not mandate which ones; everyone would be free to either decide for themselves or else align themselves with God. By the end of the set period of time, the evidence would be clear as to which choice was correct.
This is the only way that the issue could be settled once and for all, and this explains why God does not prevent bad things from happening, even to good people: if he were to prevent people from experiencing the consequences of their (and even others') mistakes, the experiment would be void.
After the experiment is complete, God has the power to restore everything that was lost: renew the earth and the physical universe, heal the physical, emotional, and mental damage among humans, and even bring back to life those that died innocent.
Now, I understand that not everyone will agree with me. You have the right to make your own choice, and I won't (and can't!) abridge that. But I didn't just make this up off the top of my head: this is the result of a lot of deep and careful Bible study. If you want to know why I believe what I do, or want to know how I can reconcile these beliefs with science, history, etc. (and I can, quite to my satisfaction) I'd be happy to explain, to the best of my ability.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
I don't think that's phrased well. The notion of God "making" the rules runs smack into the Euthyphro Problem [friesian.com] I alluded to in another post. If God's rules are arbitrary, then we simply have the case of "might makes right", the biggest bully on the block gets to make the rules.
On the other hand, if there's something about the rules that are inherently good, then that's something that's not under God's control (otherwise we'd be smack dab in the middle of the former case). God recognizes what's good, It doesn't make the good good.
So, which is it? The Golden Rule ("He who has the gold [power] makes the rules"); or, the rules are just out there, independent of God, and "soverignty" doesn't enter into it?
Now, there's still the possibility that God acts as an oracle, perfectly recognizing what's good and relaying it to us, but as I said, "soverignty" isn't relevant. And in the case of your experiment hypothesis, why not create beings that share the same perfect recognition of, and apparently approval for, good? Why wouldn't that be the best course of action?
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
To put it another way: God recognizes what's good because he created the underlying structure of everything in the universe -- and the rules are a function of that.
Two reasons: first, see above. God is the creator; by definition, his creations could not be equal to him, and this means that we could never have as complete a grasp of the complex interrelationships that make up the universe. Second (in a way this is a corollary of the first point), to know completely what choice is best in all instances would imply a way to foreknow the future. God can do this, since he created the space-time fabric of the universe and is therefore obviously not bound by it; we cannot.Your question then becomes: why did God create the universe in such a way that his creations within it could never be able to make perfect decisions without him? I would argue that the answer is that there was no other way. At this point, however, we have reached a level of such hypothetical esotericism that I don't there's any way we can, as humans, completely understand why.
In a rather roundabout way, that brings us back again to the subject of faith. At some point, you will always reach a gap between the two mountains of evidence, and you will have to jump. In some cases the gap is small, and you can stand with one foot on either side, but such vantages are unstable and often in time collapse either to one side or the other. In the end, it simply comes down to choice... and as someone once said, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
What about a God that creates a universe and then perversely gives rules to the inhabitants that are ill-suited for that universe, for Its own amusement? I don't think you can get away with that "by definition".
God is an all-wise being... any rule he makes would be the epitome of wisdom.
A theist friend of mine wants to write an evolutionary ethics simulator that he thinks would arrive at things like the Golden Rule and such. Why couldn't a creator of our universe have similar goals in mind - for us to derive our own ethics? More generally, why would a creator necessarily be perfectly wise? Why not just finitely but greatly wise?
Moreover, if such a creator is so greatly superior to us, how could we know anything about It? I mean, even if It told us about Itself, how could we trust that information? It could be fooling us, or not giving us a complete picture. I'm sure a lot of sheep have a pretty worshipful view of their shepherd, and lots of evidence that they are well cared for... until they get to the slaughterhouse.
God is the creator; by definition, his creations could not be equal to him
Creations surpass their creators in specific capacities all the time. That's why we make the class of creations called "tools". None of the creators of Deep Blue could have beat Kasparov at chess, but their creation did. Again I think you'll need to justfity that "by definition".
God recognizes what's good because he created the underlying structure of everything in the universe -- and the rules are a function of that.
Now this is interesting - I haven't run into too many theists who've realized this way of deriving ethics. Like a chessboard has certain rules of operation, and our desire to win means that certain strategies are better than others. Sacrificing your queen early on is almost never a wise move, for example.
There are physical rules that govern how our universe operates, and from our desires we can derive what strategies are best for achieving them.
Of course, this means that we don't need God as a law-giver (soverignty and authority don't matter to what's ethical or not), only perhaps as a law-relayer. And that has yet to be established.
Why couldn't we be created so that we could see the full four-dimensional structure of space-time? Again, justification is needed.
I would argue that the answer is that there was no other way. At this point, however, we have reached a level of such hypothetical esotericism that I don't there's any way we can, as humans, completely understand why...that brings us back again to the subject of faith
Well, as C.S. Lewis said, faith is having the courage of your convictions, being able to stick to what you've determined is right in the face of adversity (like not panicking when the anaesthesiologist drops the mask on your face; you've already decided that the surgery is the best course of action).
Faith is not believing in something depsite what your judgement tells you. And my best judgement is that no theist point of view that I've come across holds up.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
By saying God is all good, and thus would only perform good acts, you are essentially saying that He has no free will. He cannot choose from a selection of possibilities, he must always choose the good choice, otherwise He is not all good. One or the other.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
You're assuming that there is only ever one choice which is good. Doing good is a creative act, and creativity has infinite possibilities.
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:2)
Re:Interesting point about Christianity (Score:1)
But remember that God's all-good nature is itself a choice.