Food for thought.

[Ana the Ist]

Yes

Posted.

 

[quatona]

Actually I wanted to talk to Mark about whether or not he agreed with me that inflicting suffering upon someone could be done for morally sufficient reasons. If He agreed, then we would step onto the next step and I would have attempted to show that if it is conceivable that inflicting suffering can have morally sufficient reasons, then it is not inconceivable that God might have morally sufficient reasons for doing what He has done to people.

Fine. And I told you why it is not conceivable with reference to the god of your concept. Just to cut things short, and remove the irrelevant parts of your script.

 

[quatona]

Just because you perceive that two or more statements I have made are contradictory or mutually exclusive does mean that I have committed a logical fallacy.

That´s why I didn´t say you committed a logical fallacy, to begin with.

You see, the burden is on you to demonstrate, show, prove, provide evidence and sound reasons and arguments as to why God cannot at the same time cause someone's biological functions to cease and still see them as inviolable and of infinite worth.

So, after he killed them, what happens to them? How does that suggest the idea that God values them inviolably and infinitely?

I see no reason at all to think God's view of human beings as being of infinite worth and inviolable would preclude Him from causing certain people's biological functions and processes to cease.

That's an argument I would love to see you try to defend.

Well, actually you were the one who first claimed that God values each individual inviolably and infinitely. So, even though I can give you my objections pre-emptively (because I see elements in your thelogy that point to the opposite), it´s still up to you to substantiate tham claim, in the first place.

 

[Freodin]

Well, actually you were the one who first claimed that God values each individual inviolably and infinitely. So, even though I can give you my objections pre-emptively (because I see elements in your thelogy that point to the opposite), it´s still up to you to substantiate tham claim, in the first place.

An interesting view at least... how God can violate that which he values inviolably and end that which he values infinitely.

Now all that needs to be said that "God is above logic".

 

[anonymous person]

Is there any evidence to suggest that there was a period in Earth's history where people "lived to do only evil without respite"?

I think so. However, I have no desire at the present to present it or even talk about it. For our discussion is not on the historicity of the flood, but rather, could God have morally sufficient reasons for causing it to even happen.

No doubt the flood account is an obstacle in your way when it comes to making sense of the Bible. But why is it an obstacle? Is it not because the flood account seems to be at odds with what Christians say concerning the nature of God? I think so. Surely you will agree that it would be a very small thing for God to cause a great flood upon the earth? For this very God caused the whole universe to come into being without any material cause whatsoever!

So it seems to me my friend, that the issue of the historicity of the flood and the how of the flood are issues of secondary importance. The real issue, and the one most often raised by atheists, is how does one reconcile the fact that God killed a lot of people when He is supposedly this good and loving God.

So instead of jumping ship, I think we should be more meticulous and more methodical and stay on this issue until we agree that if the flood account is historical, that God had morally sufficient reasons, which would have been in keeping with His nature, for causing it.

Presumably this only applies to the adults, and not to the infants, children, animals, plants, etc., that were also destroyed by the Flood?

It applies to any human being capable of choosing to do evil. Infants and babies and some children fo not have the capacity so it does not apply to them. Animals are not free moral agents so neither does it apply to them.

Given his omniscience, why did he wait...

He waited for the same reason He waits now. He does not want anyone to perish and is long-suffering. He gives people chance after chance after chance. Like He is giving you. Like He gave me.

He could have foreseen and presumably could have prevented the world from falling into such a reprehensible state.

It's not that He could have foreseen, but rather that He foresaw this happen. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. He knew He would have to send a flood before He created the angels and arcangels.

God could not have prevented the earth from falling into such a state while simultaneously bringing to pass and accomplishing everything He desired to accomplish in the earth.

Why did he select such a destructive method of "removing wickedness from the world"? Were no less destructive methods available to him?

Such a method was fitting for the effects He desired to cause. The choice method of physicians for removing harmful debris and foreign particles which could cause irreparable damage to a person's eye, is to inundate the eyeball with clean water. The water cleanses and washes away those impurities which if left alone, could cause a person immense pain and loss of sight and other potential health problems.

Given what you have claimed about the people - that they were wicked beyond comparison - one would think that they would have done worse to Noah than merely mock him. I can't help but notice, however, that you are comparing yourself to Noah. Is that how you see yourself here

As I stated they probably viewed him as an idiot and not worth their time. I also believe God protected Noah from them while He built the ark.

And infants, children, and all the animals and plants not on the Ark.

The infants and children incapable of making moral judgments were not evil by virtue of having devised it and carried it out. The plants seemed to have fared pretty well on their own. The sea creatures I would have imagined fared well too, and also the birds. The land animals not in the Ark perished.

Are you claiming that this story is factual and that it actually happened as recounted in Genesis?

Indeed I am.

In other words, we see human beings helping other human beings, unassisted by any supernatural beings.

No, I see what I said I see.

The threat of Hell is not at all coercive? What punishment does your god mete to those who fail to reciprocate his "love"?

The warning of hell does not force anyone to love Jesus. It might make them want to be forgiven so they don't have to go there, a fire insurance type deal, but no, Jesus never spoke about hell with the intention of having people love Him. He spoke of hell because He loved them that He spoke to and warned them, not unlike you or I would do for them that we love if we knew that as a result of some course of action or some path in life they were on, they would end up very bad off. I have done just this to sever friends of mine who are drug users. I have warned them, in love, that if they continue on as they are, then they will regret it very much, as I myself have experienced.

Men are punished because they do things that merit punishment and God is righteous and just. All of God's attributes mesh perfectly and are all governed by His Holiness and love.

If God did not judge the world and men in righteousness then you would have some claiming He was morally bankrupt for not doing so.

So it seems to me that we see exactly what we would expect to see if God lived and was Holy and just. That is, we see judgment in the earth.

 

[quatona]

An interesting view at least... how God can violate that which he values inviolably and end that which he values infinitely.

Now all that needs to be said that "God is above logic".

Yes, that´s usually how it goes: We get endless explanations how these claims make sense on human terms, and at the point where they cease to make any sense on human terms, it´s "It´s beyond human understanding. It´s beyond logic. Who are you to ask questions?". Etc.
Which renders those first explanations on human terms completely redundant and irrelevant smoke screens, created to cover the fact that it doesn´t make sense.

 

[quatona]

No doubt the flood account is an obstacle in your way when it comes to making sense of the Bible. But why is it an obstacle? Is it not because the flood account seems to be at odds with what Christians say concerning the nature of God? I think so. Surely you will agree that it would be a very small thing for God to cause a great flood upon the earth? For this very God caused the whole universe to come into being without any material cause whatsoever!

And surely you will agree that it would be a small thing for this very God to achieve the "greater good" right away - without causing a great flood upon the earth.

So it seems to me my friend, that the issue of the historicity of the flood and the how of the flood are issues of secondary importance. The real issue, and the one most often raised by atheists, is how does one reconcile the fact that God killed a lot of people when He is supposedly this good and loving God.

They are both of importance, depending on what´s being discussed. Unfortunately you kept lumping these questions together to maintain your attack on atheists´ mindset. I´m glad that you are now willing to discuss each on their own term.
1. Does the God depicted in the bible exist?
2. (Assuming He does): Do his actions as described in the bible allow certain (in particular: valuating) claims about His characteristics, his traits, his mind set, his intentions, his qualities?

 

[anonymous person]

An interesting view at least... how God can violate that which he values inviolably and end that which he values infinitely.

Now all that needs to be said that "God is above logic".

No, not above logic. God is logical.

Also, helpful for you here with regards to this, is to recognize the distinction between qualitative superlatives and quantitative superlatives.

To say that a human being is of infinite worth is to simply say that they are very important to God. It has nothing to do with the duration of time. Thus, in the sense that I used the term, the word "infinite" is not to be seen as a quantitative superlative, but a qualitative one.

Do you understand now?

 

[quatona]

And, btw., even if humans use the "greater good" defense (e.g. when amputating a limb), we surely expect them to be able to show
- what this "greater good" actually is
- that and how the action in question would help the "greater good"
- that the "greater good" could not have been accomplished by less destructive means.

IOW the defense "I did it for a greater good" isn´t simply accepted for an excuse once a person claims so.

 

[quatona]

No, not above logic. God is logical.

Also, helpful for you here with regards to this, is to recognize the distinction between qualitative superlatives and quantitative superlatives.

To say that a human being is of infinite worth is to simply say that they are very important to God.

Well, that would be using extreme hyperbole. Not very helpful.

It has nothing to do with the duration of time. Thus, in the sense that I used the term, the word "infinite" is not to be seen as a quantitative superlative, but a qualitative one.

Which would mean you are claiming a temporal nature for your God: At one point in time you are inviolably and infinitely worthy to Him, at another point in time His valuations may have changed.

On another note, you had added "inviolably". How is that reconcilabe with timely limitation?

 

[Freodin]

No, not above logic. God is logical.

Also, helpful for you here with regards to this, is to recognize the distinction between qualitative superlatives and quantitative superlatives.

To say that a human being is of infinite worth is to simply say that they are very important to God. It has nothing to do with the duration of time. Thus, in the sense that I used the term, the word "infinite" is not to be seen as a quantitative superlative, but a qualitative one.

Do you understand now?

I understood before. But my point yet remains: if you end something that you "infinitly" value, it show that you don't value it "infinitly"... because you cannot value something that doesn't exist. My point works as well qualitatively as quantitatively.
If you want to replace "infinitly" with "very important"... well, be my guest. It just isn't the same. Just for one thing: it shows that you value the reason you ended this something more that you valued the something. This just isn't very logical when you use "infinitly".

(And I noticed that you managed to skip over the second point, the "inviolable". Care to respond to that, or are you going to ignore me again?)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think so. However, I have no desire at the present to present it or even talk about it. For our discussion is not on the historicity of the flood, but rather, could God have morally sufficient reasons for causing it to even happen.

You never bothered to elucidate what those "morally sufficient reasons" are.

No doubt the flood account is an obstacle in your way when it comes to making sense of the Bible. But why is it an obstacle? Is it not because the flood account seems to be at odds with what Christians say concerning the nature of God? I think so.

No. First and foremost, it's that there is no evidence that such a flood ever happened. That's a pretty big obstacle, but you don't want to discuss it.

Surely you will agree that it would be a very small thing for God to cause a great flood upon the earth? For this very God caused the whole universe to come into being without any material cause whatsoever!

Why a flood at all? Were no less destructive methods available to him?

So it seems to me my friend, that the issue of the historicity of the flood and the how of the flood are issues of secondary importance. The real issue, and the one most often raised by atheists, is how does one reconcile the fact that God killed a lot of people when He is supposedly this good and loving God.

Actually, no, I would disagree. Bear in mind that we are talking about an event that we have no reason to believe really happened as recounted in Genesis. That would seem to be fairly important, no?

So instead of jumping ship, I think we should be more meticulous and more methodical and stay on this issue until we agree that if the flood account is historical, that God had morally sufficient reasons, which would have been in keeping with His nature, for causing it.

You never bothered to elucidate those "morally sufficient reasons."

It applies to any human being capable of choosing to do evil. Infants and babies and some children fo not have the capacity so it does not apply to them. Animals are not free moral agents so neither does it apply to them.

And yet they were all destroyed anyway. What "morally sufficient reasons" justify their destruction? Couldn't he have saved them like he saved Noah?

He waited for the same reason He waits now. He does not want anyone to perish and is long-suffering. He gives people chance after chance after chance. Like He is giving you. Like He gave me.

You seem to be forgetting his omniscience. He already knows the outcome. He knew the outcome before he even created them.

It's not that He could have foreseen, but rather that He foresaw this happen. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. He knew He would have to send a flood before He created the angels and arcangels.

God could not have prevented the earth from falling into such a state while simultaneously bringing to pass and accomplishing everything He desired to accomplish in the earth.

So he desired the Flood? There was no other for him to achieve his intended goals, even given his omnipotence?

Such a method was fitting for the effects He desired to cause. The choice method of physicians for removing harmful debris and foreign particles which could cause irreparable damage to a person's eye, is to inundate the eyeball with clean water. The water cleanses and washes away those impurities which if left alone, could cause a person immense pain and loss of sight and other potential health problems.

A physician isn't omnipotent or omniscient.

I stated they probably viewed him as an idiot and not worth their time. I also believe God protected Noah from them while He built the ark.

Given what you claimed about the people, it seems unlikely that they would stop at mere mockery.

The infants and children incapable of making moral judgments were not evil by virtue of having devised it and carried it out. The plants seemed to have fared pretty well on their own. The sea creatures I would have imagined fared well too, and also the birds. The land animals not in the Ark perished.

What was the "morally sufficient reason" that justified their destruction? Couldn't he have saved them like he saved Noah?

Indeed I am.

Then it would seem that the historicity of the Flood is important, contrary to your attempts to downplay it.

No, I see what I said I see.

Do you see human beings assisted by something supernatural in their efforts to help one another?

The warning of hell does not force anyone to love Jesus. It might make them want to be forgiven so they don't have to go there, a fire insurance type deal, but no, Jesus never spoke about hell with the intention of having people love Him. He spoke of hell because He loved them that He spoke to and warned them, not unlike you or I would do for them that we love if we knew that as a result of some course of action or some path in life they were on, they would end up very bad off. I have done just this to sever friends of mine who are drug users. I have warned them, in love, that if they continue on as they are, then they will regret it very much, as I myself have experienced.

What are the consequences for not reciprocating his "love"? It's no mere warning. It's an ultimatum.

Men are punished because they do things that merit punishment and God is righteous and just. All of God's attributes mesh perfectly and are all governed by His Holiness and love.

That doesn't seem to be true of your theology. In your theology, men merit a cruel and never-ending punishment for not sharing your theological commitments. Is that just?

If God did not judge the world and men in righteousness then you would have some claiming He was morally bankrupt for not doing so.

If we are talking about your theology, he doesn't. In your theology, he judges them only according to whether they believed in the salvific doctrines. That is what they are ultimately held accountable for.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Just because you perceive that two or more statements I have made are contradictory or mutually exclusive does mean that I have committed a logical fallacy.

You see, the burden is on you to demonstrate, show, prove, provide evidence and sound reasons and arguments as to why God cannot at the same time cause someone's biological functions to cease and still see them as inviolable and of infinite worth.

I see no reason at all to think God's view of human beings as being of infinite worth and inviolable would preclude Him from causing certain people's biological functions and processes to cease.

That's an argument I would love to see you try to defend.

Is that how you would justify killing in the name of God to yourself? You would see yourself merely as the instrument of God's will?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Have you considered that perhaps people are hesitant to debate you because they have serious doubts about your intellectual honesty?

Not really.

In that case, you should consider it more seriously.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And, btw., even if humans use the "greater good" defense (e.g. when amputating a limb), we surely expect them to be able to show
- what this "greater good" actually is
- that and how the action in question would help the "greater good"
- that the "greater good" could not have been accomplished by less destructive means.

IOW the defense "I did it for a greater good" isn´t simply accepted for an excuse once a person claims so.

Moreover, such reasoning would seem less applicable to an entity that was putatively both omniscient and omnipotent.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You seem to be forgetting his omniscience.

Christians forget their god's attributes when it's necessary to make sense of their theology. If they didn't, stories like the flood would make their god look really, really bad:

Christian: Yes, God drowned toddlers during the flood. Because he had to.

Non Christian: But an omnipotent and omniscient god could have created a world in which the flood wasn't necessary at all. Or at the very least wiped the world clean without causing suffering to children.

Christian: La la la, I can't hear you.

 

[bhsmte]

Christians forget their god's attributes when it's necessary to make sense of their theology. If they didn't, stories like the flood would make their god look really, really bad:

Christian: Yes, God drowned toddlers during the flood. Because he had to.

Non Christian: But an omnipotent and omniscient god could have created a world in which the flood wasn't necessary at all. Or at the very least wiped the world clean without causing suffering to children.

Christian: La la la, I can't hear you.

Reminds me of what I often hear from certain Christians when something good happens to them and they give the credit to God for it happening because it was his will.

When I ask them about the 9 million children who die each year before the age of five, while they are crediting God's will for their new job, they typically reply; who could know the will of God?

When I point out the obvious contradiction to them, their defense mechanisms then kick into overdrive.

 

[Davian]

...
No doubt the flood account is an obstacle in your way when it comes to making sense of the Bible.

One of many.

But why is it an obstacle? Is it not because the flood account seems to be at odds with what Christians say concerning the nature of God? I think so.

No, it is because the flood story is at odds with observations of reality.

Surely you will agree that it would be a very small thing for God to cause a great flood upon the earth? For this very God caused the whole universe to come into being without any material cause whatsoever!

Using one untestable, unfalsifiable religious claim to qualify the possibility of another religious claim would seem to me to be fallacious.

So it seems to me my friend, that the issue of the historicity of the flood and the how of the flood are issues of secondary importance.

Not at all. If the flood, and the associated genealogies did not happen as described in the bible, then your theology is up the river without any water, it is not?

The real issue, and the one most often raised by atheists, is how does one reconcile the fact that God killed a lot of people when He is supposedly this good and loving God.

I know how you reconcile it. It is called "apologetics".

So instead of jumping ship, I think we should be more meticulous and more methodical and stay on this issue until we agree that if the flood account is historical,
...

If? You want to sweep the "If virtually all of mainstream science is wrong" elephant-in-the-room under the rug?

 

[Davian]

...
The warning of hell does not force anyone to love Jesus. It might make them want to be forgiven so they don't have to go there, a fire insurance type deal, but no, Jesus never spoke about hell with the intention of having people love Him. He spoke of hell because He loved them that He spoke to and warned them, not unlike you or I would do for them that we love if we knew that as a result of some course of action or some path in life they were on, they would end up very bad off. I have done just this to sever friends of mine who are drug users. I have warned them, in love, that if they continue on as they are, then they will regret it very much, as I myself have experienced.

Men are punished because they do things that merit punishment and God is righteous and just. All of God's attributes mesh perfectly and are all governed by His Holiness and love.

If God did not judge the world and men in righteousness then you would have some claiming He was morally bankrupt for not doing so.

So it seems to me that we see exactly what we would expect to see if God lived and was Holy and just. That is, we see judgment in the earth.

From what I understand, there are essentially three reasons for punishing a person:
1) Anger/retribution
2) As a deterrent, to show others that such behaviour is wrong
3) To teach the person a lesson so they won't repeat the behaviour.

In the context of "Hell", the person's life is over, so #3 doesn't apply.

#3 is also a problem, in that sin (disbelief) is not a conscious act.

As we have no demonstrable evidence for the existence of a biblical "Hell", or that anyone has gone there, #2 doesn't apply.

So that leaves us with #1. If Hell exists, then this [hypothetical] God sends people there out of his own vengeance, for something beyond their control.

How is that not morally bankrupt?

 

[anonymous person]

Christians forget their god's attributes when it's necessary to make sense of their theology. If they didn't, stories like the flood would make their god look really, really bad:

Christian: Yes, God drowned toddlers during the flood. Because he had to.

Non Christian: But an omnipotent and omniscient god could have created a world in which the flood wasn't necessary at all. Or at the very least wiped the world clean without causing suffering to children.

Christian: La la la, I can't hear you.

I agree with you when you say God could have created a world wherein the flood was not necessary.