|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
frako writes: We all know power corrupts give a good man power and sooner or later he will start abusing it no longer being a good man. Absolute power corrupts absolutely so maybe god figured that he was such a prick in the old testament cause he used his power the only way for him to stop being a prick is to not use his power anymore. Now that answer actually makes some sense.And it even approaches "satisfactory." Of course, it would mean a few things:God is not All Powerful - He is subject to becoming corrupted God has more human-features than God-features - He is subject to the same temptations and weaknesses of any human (Of course, as you said, if we look at the God in the Old Testament... He certainly does seem to have a lot of human qualities such as temptation and weakness). I have no blame to place on a God that is not All-Powerful but still trying His best.I only have blame for a God that could do something, but doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When people still get raped. HUH? How does that show that God does nothing? Is it not a human that rapes another human?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Sometimes it's an animal-action, and an animal is affected, and an animal-reaction to the situation with no humans involved whatsoever. As studies in such things show with dolphins, monkeys, mice and other non-humans. Okay. Animals might help me make my point, though I really doubt anything such as 'evil' exists for animals, and if it does it is certainly nothing like how we perceive right and wrong. But consider someone who 'rescues' the slow deer from the wolf by scaring off the latter. Are those actions moral? Is that the 'right' thing to do? Is it good to save one and starve the other? The answer is that there's no clear way to categorize such things into right and wrong groups. It's a situation in which we really have no business getting involved. The deer is probably happy, but the wolf isn't; the two have competing interests and goals that both make the other worse off. Sometimes we can feel more justified in our approach to such things, like if we save a bird from our cat. But that is just us feeling better about it. It doesn't really change the fact that it is none of our business to get involved and that getting involved, however benevolent it may be, robs the actors of their freedom.
If it is just a human problem, I would agree with you. However, I don't think it is. I think it's an intelligence problem. And God, assuming He exists and has intelligence, would therefore be involved. If He has intelligence and is aware of our situation and can do something about it... then it is His problem and it is His business. He would be the equivalent of a human standing by doing nothing. But that all hinges on my claim that evil is an intelligence-problem, not simply a human-only problem. If you do not agree with me on that, I can provide links of morality and evil in non-humans (animals) that do have levels of intelligence. It is a human problem not because only humans can perceive right/wrong. It is a human problem because it affects humans. I don't know why you think it is okay for another agent to remove the power from humans to decide their own destinies. I don't think it is okay, no matter how smart or well-intended that other agent may be.
2. You think it would probably be better if God stayed out of it. -I contend this with the example I provided... I'm pretty sure the daughter would very much appreciate it and consider it "better" if God prevented her rape. I know that I personally think God should prevent the rape in that situation. Your contention is that a dictatorship is a good thing so long as the dictator does what we want him to do. My contention is that a dictatorship is not a good thing, no matter how good the dictator may be.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And the reason it occurs is that God is too pure for us, we can never be righteous enough to please Him. Wait, what happened to this:
quote: If its giving up slaves, and people can't do it, then God wisely takes them where they are. But the fact that he's too pure for us, and we can never be righteous enough to please Him, well that is going to make us burn in hell forever. Why doesn't he "take us where we are"? What happened to that? Why does he only do that for slavery?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
double post
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Wasn't Pascal a Catholic? So he wasn't talking about True Christianity at all. So what he was saying is, "It would help a great deal if the people who are always attacking and criticizing Catholicism learned something about it first."
As Pascal said, it would help a great deal if the people who are always attacking and criticizing Christianity learned something about it first. Faith writes:
What if He isn't? And YOU have it all wrong?
What if that God actually is the one that exists? And you have it all wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Jon writes: It doesn't really change the fact that it is none of our business to get involved and that getting involved, however benevolent it may be, robs the actors of their freedom. I understand your point, I just don't agree with your conclusions.Perhaps we simply disagree and that's that. I'm going to explain my disagreement, however, so feel free to comment again.
...though I really doubt anything such as 'evil' exists for animals... In the context you're using the term here, I really doubt anything such as 'evil' exists for humans as well.
The answer is that there's no clear way to categorize such things into right and wrong groups. This I completely agree with.There's never a clear way to categorize moral situations. I take that as an indication that it's pretty much all made up in our imaginations. Of course, this doesn't mean our imaginations are worthless, and it certainly doesn't mean we can't place value upon things from our imaginations. Again:
It doesn't really change the fact that it is none of our business to get involved and that getting involved, however benevolent it may be, robs the actors of their freedom. I agree. And I would agree that perhaps it is none of God's business if, say... God did not create us, and/or God didn't care about us, and/or God has better things to do. However, those things are generally involved when talking about "God." We generally speak of a God that did create us (or had a hand in it...), and one that's supposed to care about us (or, at least, want us to succeed), and that He takes an interest in us. I fully understand why a God who doesn't care about us wouldn't (and probably shouldn't) interfere.But given those things, and given that the actors in our situation are quite capable of expressing their desires where animals are not... I do not see how this idea applies to what I'm talking about. It is a human problem not because only humans can perceive right/wrong. It is a human problem because it affects humans. On some sides I see the point here.On other side, I do not see the point. Let's try a few analogies: With humans:A Canadian man is about to rape a Canadian woman. An American man can stop it. Should he? I say yes. You say yes, because they're all human?I just want to point out that someone could say such a thing was a "Canadian Problem" and should be "taken care of by Canadians" with pretty much the same validity as the argument you're using with human/non-human... With Aliens:A human is about to rape another human. An intelligent alien can stop it. Should he? I say yes. You say no? Because the alien isn't human? With Gods:A human is about to rape another human. An intelligent God can stop it. Should He? I say yes. You say no. Because the God isn't human. It just... doesn't sit right with me. If everyone minded their own business and only helped out their own... then the world would be a lot worse than it is now.I understand that you're drawing the line at humans because you don't communicate with or understand animals. Such a line just seems to be arbitrary to me, and be extremely cold to the daughter who's still getting raped because you think God shouldn't intervene when He could. It sounds like pride and ego are overriding the safety and protection of the innocent daughter.That doesn't sound right to me. I don't know why you think it is okay for another agent to remove the power from humans to decide their own destinies. I didn't say "always".I'm quite specifically talking about when one human has already decided to remove the power from another human to decide their own destiny. Why shouldn't that hurtful human's destiny be removed from them instead? By anyone/thing capable of doing it? I think it's okay for another agent to get involved because the hurtful-human has already decided to remove the power of another human's control over their own destiny. If the hurtful human doesn't respect it for others, why should it be respected for them? If you think another human should stop them... I really don't see the problem with having a God stop them. Who cares who or what actually does the stopping if you think it should be stopped?
Your contention is that a dictatorship is a good thing so long as the dictator does what we want him to do. No, that's not my contention at all.Did you read the example I provided? I'm specifically not talking about a dictatorship. I'm specifically talking about a single situation in which a non-human being can prevent a human-being's evil action. My contention is that a dictatorship is not a good thing, no matter how good the dictator may be. I would agree whole-heartedly. Which is why I'm not promoting such a thing. Why are you jumping to this conclusion? Here's a scale: Human should stop a human-rape. - we both agree this should happen.God should stop a human-rape. - I think this should happen, you say no. God should be a dictator over all human actions. - we both agree this should not happen. I understand that the extreme is not something to be desired.I'm just confused as to why the middle ground cannot be considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
jar writes: HUH? How does that show that God does nothing? Is it not a human that rapes another human? If a human rapes another human, it shows that I (as a human) did nothing that would result in stopping that rape.If a human rapes another human, it shows that God (as a God) did nothing that would result in stopping that rape. I don't understand how when a rape happens it doesn't show that God did nothing.... I'm sure he didn't do literally nothing. Perhaps He twiddled His Godly Thumbs while watching it happen. I don't know. That's really quite irrelevant to the scenario we're discussing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If a human rapes another human, it shows that I (as a human) did nothing that would result in stopping that rape. If a human rapes another human, it shows that God (as a God) did nothing that would result in stopping that rape. I don't understand how when a rape happens it doesn't show that God did nothing.... I know you think that but cannot understand how you could think that. Your position just seems silly. If I do all that I can to teach my daughter how to avoid getting raped. provide her with weapons and knowledge of how to use those weapons, provide her with knowledge of situational assessment, yet she still gets raped then I do not see how anyone could say that I did nothing.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
jar writes: If I do all that I can to teach my daughter how to avoid getting raped. provide her with weapons and knowledge of how to use those weapons, provide her with knowledge of situational assessment, yet she still gets raped then I do not see how anyone could say that I did nothing. I would agree.I am confused as to how you think this is similar to the example I provided? However, if you did all these things, then stood in the alley and watched while she was raped, I would say you did nothing.This is more akin to an all powerful God, don't you think? Of course, if God has restrictions... if He doesn't know everything, see everything, and is all-powerful... then I remove the blame I'm putting on Him. Because then He's just like us, restricted to the environment He finds Himself in. ...which, again, is something I already said originally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
However, if you did all these things, then stood in the alley and watched while she was raped, I would say you did nothing. This is more akin to an all powerful God, don't you think? Well no, I do not think that.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm not interested in endless lists of analogies. So I will reply only to the stuff we've already brought up:
In the context you're using the term here, I really doubt anything such as 'evil' exists for humans as well. Nonsense: evil.
It doesn't really change the fact that it is none of our business to get involved and that getting involved, however benevolent it may be, robs the actors of their freedom. I agree. And I would agree that perhaps it is none of God's business if, say... God did not create us, and/or God didn't care about us, and/or God has better things to do. However, those things are generally involved when talking about "God." We generally speak of a God that did create us (or had a hand in it...), and one that's supposed to care about us (or, at least, want us to succeed), and that He takes an interest in us. I fully understand why a God who doesn't care about us wouldn't (and probably shouldn't) interfere.But given those things, and given that the actors in our situation are quite capable of expressing their desires where animals are not... I do not see how this idea applies to what I'm talking about. I care more about my cat than I do about the bird. I would still save the bird. Why do you think that is?
God should stop a human-rape. - I think this should happen, you say no. God should be a dictator over all human actions. - we both agree this should not happen. Well if your opinions extend only to the realm of a single hypothetical situation, then I suppose the whole thing's moot. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
There's a difference between doing nothing and not doing everything. Of course, if God has restrictions... if He doesn't know everything, see everything, and is all-powerful... then I remove the blame I'm putting on Him. If God is all-powerful, He can do everything but that doesn't necessarily mean that He should do everything you think He should do. I could donate $100 to the Red Cross or the Catholic Church or the Ku Klux Klan but there are likely to be differences of opinion on what I should do. The one who gets to decide is me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
If God is all-powerful, He can do everything but that doesn't necessarily mean that He should do everything you think He should do. Doesn't matter. If he can but won't then it's all on him regardless of his reasons or what anyone thinks he should do. If he can't then he's not only innocent he is not really a god as most would conceive.
I could donate $100 to the Red Cross or the Catholic Church or the Ku Klux Klan but there are likely to be differences of opinion on what I should do. Buy beer, man. That should be obvious. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
AZPaul3 writes:
That isn't the issue. If He can do anything, that doesn't mean He can do everything at once. Even omnipotence is subject to the Law of Non-contradiction. He can't do what's best for the rape victim and what's best for the rapist at the same time. He can't do what's best for the sick person and what's best for the bacteria at the same time. He can't do what's best for the zebra and what's best for the lion at the same time. He has to choose, and His choice might not be the same as yours.
If he can but won't then it's all on him regardless of his reasons or what anyone thinks he should do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024