Culpability

MethodMan · Aug 2, 2009

ToddNotTodd said:
My initial scenario really wasn't pertaining to the fall, but I'll adjust...

But the fall has everything to do with what you tried to set up.

There's a room full of school children. I've placed in the room a rabid dog inside a cage. I've put the latch to the cage at a height easily accessible to the children and I've made the latch easy to open. I've also allowed an adult in the room with the children. The adult tells the children that, even though there's a sign saying not to let the dog out, the dog is nice and wants to play with them. And the dog is magic and will give them presents.

This is still not representative of the characters in the Fall. Although Satan did sort of trick them, he would not have been seen as an authority figure.

Now, am I culpable when they open the cage and get mauled? Even if I "love" them after?

Not when you fix your scenario.

Oh wait, I forgot something... In this scenario I'm psychic. And I know for sure that the adult in the room will be persuasive enough to get the children to open the cage.

Because God's omnipresence to "psychic" is a bit of an understatement, you want to continue to blame him for Man's condition, even though it was Man's choice.

I'm pretty sure any court in any country would convict me.

Let's just say, the Judge would disagree.

ToddNotTodd · Aug 2, 2009

MethodMan said:
But the fall has everything to do with what you tried to set up.

My initial scenario was just meant to represent god's culpability in our suffering in general, not specific to the fall. But the fall is actually an easier target, so we'll go with that.

MethodMan said:
This is still not representative of the characters in the Fall. Although Satan did sort of trick them, he would not have been seen as an authority figure.

Ok, I'll adjust again. Now the "antagonist" I've allowed in the room is a child like the other children in the room. Since I know for sure that this child will be successful in persuading the other children to let the dog out, this adjustment means... nothing.

MethodMan said:
Not when you fix your scenario.

Please state your case as to why I'm not culpable for the harm to the children.

MethodMan said:
Because God's omnipresence to "psychic" is a bit of an understatement, you want to continue to blame him for Man's condition, even though it was Man's choice.

The choice has nothing to do with god's culpability. You realize that you don't have to be one to perform an action to be culpable for the result of that action, right?

MethodMan said:
Let's just say, the Judge would disagree.

You're kidding about this part, right? I would be amazed to find any court case that didn't convict someone in a similar circumstance. As someone has already pointed out, people have been convicted when someone takes the effort to climb over their fence and are bitten by their dog. My scenario is much more blatant than that.

MethodMan · Aug 2, 2009

ToddNotTodd said:
My initial scenario was just meant to represent god's culpability in our suffering in general, not specific to the fall. But the fall is actually an easier target, so we'll go with that.

Keep shooting. All you do is miss the target. MAn can not blame God for their suffering. One only needs to look in the mirror.

Ok, I'll adjust again. Now the "antagonist" I've allowed in the room is a child like the other children in the room. Since I know for sure that this child will be successful in persuading the other children to let the dog out, this adjustment means... nothing.

But the decision is still the child's.

The choice has nothing to do with god's culpability. You realize that you don't have to be one to perform an action to be culpable for the result of that action, right?

Culpablity, blame - whatever you call it. lies with the person that made the the informed choice; which is exactly what happened.

You're kidding about this part, right? I would be amazed to find any court case that didn't convict someone in a similar circumstance. As someone has already pointed out, people have been convicted when someone takes the effort to climb over their fence and are bitten by their dog. My scenario is much more blatant than that.

But you are trying to apply Man's standard to God. We are not qualified to do so.

Gracchus · Aug 2, 2009

"Depraved Indifference Law & Legal Definition

To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendants conduct, not the injuries actually resulting."

Depraved Indifference Law & Legal Definition

:wave:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/

Gracchus · Aug 2, 2009

MethodMan said:
But you are trying to apply Man's standard to God. We are not qualified to do so.

Actually, we probably aren't qualified to apply man's standard to man.

:sorry:

ToddNotTodd · Aug 3, 2009

MethodMan said:
Keep shooting. All you do is miss the target. MAn can not blame God for their suffering. One only needs to look in the mirror.

I look in the mirror and see someone who, given the idea that god is omnipotent, could be living in a world with no suffering. But according to you I live in a world set up by a god who knows all outcomes, and designed the initial conditions knowing they will fail. Which means that god desired it to be so. Which means that suffering was preventable, but god desires suffering.

MethodMan said:
But the decision is still the child's.

So? I set up a situation that I know will cause harm. I'm culpable for that harm both because I set up the situation, and because I do nothing to prevent it. Do you disagree with laws on the books that pertain to these sorts of situations [negligence, Good Samaritan laws]? If so, why?

MethodMan said:
Culpablity, blame - whatever you call it. lies with the person that made the the informed choice; which is exactly what happened.

That to me is silly. Culpability lies with the negligent party. It's no different from icing over your sidewalk so that your mail carrier falls and breaks their neck. I hope you don't argue that the mail carrier is culpable, since they made the choice to walk up your sidewalk. But that very case has been tried in the courts, and the person icing the sidewalk was the one found guilty.

In this case, God created a situation that God, through omniscience, knew would result in a particular outcome. A preventable outcome if God is omnipotent. Adam and Eve had little assumption of risk, since they were so easily swayed.

God could have set things up differently.

MethodMan said:
But you are trying to apply Man's standard to God. We are not qualified to do so.

I'm qualified to judge god against the only standards by which we can... our own. I don't have any special God standard to test things. What's the God standard that absolves him of any responsibility?

uberd00b · Aug 3, 2009

ToddNotTodd said:
What's your thoughts?

The buck must stop at the top. There are efforts by Christians to somehow absolve God of his responsibility, but as the creator it is impossible for anyone else to claim it.

quatona · Aug 3, 2009

ToddNotTodd said:
If I let a rabid dog into a class of schoolchildren and the dog attacks the children, am I responsible for what happens to the children?

I mean... i didn't maul the children. The dog might not have attacked the children. I didn't force the dog to attack the children...

What's your thoughts?

Assuming that this is about god´s responsibility/accountability:

If there is a god, and if this god is the omniscient and omnipotent creator of everything, this god is in charge of everything, and there is no reasonable way to assume that anything that is or happens is not exactly what this god wants to be or happen, i.e. there is no way for god to get rid of his authorship of EVERYTHING, or even to claim the responsibility/accountability lies with his creatures.

MethodMan · Aug 3, 2009

ToddNotTodd said:
I look in the mirror and see someone who, given the idea that god is omnipotent, could be living in a world with no suffering. But according to you I live in a world set up by a god who knows all outcomes, and designed the initial conditions knowing they will fail. Which means that god desired it to be so. Which means that suffering was preventable, but god desires suffering.

No, God did not intend for it to fail. Yes, he knew it would. So the question would be why?

So? I set up a situation that I know will cause harm. I'm culpable for that harm both because I set up the situation, and because I do nothing to prevent it. Do you disagree with laws on the books that pertain to these sorts of situations [negligence, Good Samaritan laws]? If so, why?

The laws on the books are man-made. Nuff said!

That to me is silly. Culpability lies with the negligent party. It's no different from icing over your sidewalk so that your mail carrier falls and breaks their neck. I hope you don't argue that the mail carrier is culpable, since they made the choice to walk up your sidewalk. But that very case has been tried in the courts, and the person icing the sidewalk was the one found guilty.

Again - applying man laws but only applying the facts you choose.

In this case, God created a situation that God, through omniscience, knew would result in a particular outcome. A preventable outcome if God is omnipotent. Adam and Eve had little assumption of risk, since they were so easily swayed.

God could have set things up differently.

He could. Now ask yourself why He did not.

I'm qualified to judge god against the only standards by which we can... our own. I don't have any special God standard to test things. What's the God standard that absolves him of any responsibility?

His standard. His creation. His Love. Your choice.

There lies the answer as to why. He gave you the ability to Love. He also gavr you the ability not to love. All you will attempt to do is reason your way out of that decision. Adam had the perfect ability to choose to Love God and follow His command not to choose to let sin enter his life. Now, you have the choice of allowing it to run yours or receive the free gift not to.

jayem · Aug 3, 2009

Why God is let off the hook for anything bad, but usually credited for something good? Remember the West Va. mine explosion from a few years ago? 13 miners were trapped--all but one died. I remember hearing all the thanks given to God for the survivor's rescue. But what about the 12 miners that died? And why did God allow the explosion in the first place? The idea of an omnibenevolent God contradicts everything we observe of how the world operates. But I guess that's my problem for trying to understand God's ways with human logic.

ToddNotTodd · Aug 3, 2009

MethodMan said:
No, God did not intend for it to fail. Yes, he knew it would. So the question would be why?

Like I already said, God desires suffering. You tell me why this is the case.

MethodMan said:
The laws on the books are man-made. Nuff said!

Letting God off the hook just because he's God? Our laws are perfectly fine for judging God. Yes, the creation can judge the creator. If God has a good reason for the fall, perhaps God should say something.

MethodMan said:
Again - applying man laws but only applying the facts you choose.

So what you're saying is that if God was human he'd be culpable under our laws, but since he's God he isn't? And you don't see a problem with that statement?

MethodMan said:
He could. Now ask yourself why He did not.

I already said, God desires suffering because:

A. God does what God most desires.
B. God set a system that God knew would fail. [implies omniscience]
C. God could have set up a system that did not fail, but did not. [implies omnipotence]
C. The failure of the system God set up caused suffering.

Unless you can find fault with the above, God's desire was our suffering. Note that if you eliminate omnipotence and/or omniscience, the problem can go away. Christian philosophers in the past have done so.

MethodMan said:
His standard. His creation. His Love. Your choice.

There lies the answer as to why. He gave you the ability to Love. He also gavr you the ability not to love. All you will attempt to do is reason your way out of that decision. Adam had the perfect ability to choose to Love God and follow His command not to choose to let sin enter his life. Now, you have the choice of allowing it to run yours or receive the free gift not to.

Is this the "God gave us freewill" argument? If so, God could have created us with the ability to choose to cause suffering, but never to do so. This wouldn't affect our freewill.

This also doesn't address natural suffering - disease, accidents, etc. Why aren't we all built like Superman?

Gracchus · Aug 3, 2009

A few points:

Many assert, even demand, that God be omniscient and omnipotent. This involves contradiction, paradox, and impossibility. The universe is the way it is, and could not be otherwise.

If humans have free will, then much of human misery could be eliminated or ameliorated. Humans, by and large, are selfish, greedy, malicious, vicious, lying, stealing hypocrites. Those who aren't, by and large, tolerate those who are, admire them, or aspire to emulate them. They justify poverty and glorify war.

Some, warned that they cannot serve two masters, choose to serve money, war, or government, all the while shouting, "Jesus is Lord!"

Don't blame God because you have chosen to rob, enslave, murder and torture. Don't blame God for poisoning and destroying your lives. Americans especially, have chosen ignorance over knowledge, greed over justice, violence over reason, lust over love.

We have been given the keys to the Kingdom, and we choose to live in Hell. Justice is satisfied.

:wave:

MethodMan · Aug 3, 2009

jayem said:
Why God is let off the hook for anything bad, but usually credited for something good? Remember the West Va. mine explosion from a few years ago? 13 miners were trapped--all but one died. I remember hearing all the thanks given to God for the survivor's rescue. But what about the 12 miners that died? And why did God allow the explosion in the first place? The idea of an omnibenevolent God contradicts everything we observe of how the world operates. But I guess that's my problem for trying to understand God's ways with human logic.

What was cause of the explosion? God?

Why the intelectual 2-step with demanding logic withou offering any?

MethodMan · Aug 3, 2009

ToddNotTodd said:
Like I already said, God desires suffering. You tell me why this is the case.

You can't possibly demonstrate that God wants us to suffer. Try again.

Letting God off the hook just because he's God? Our laws are perfectly fine for judging God. Yes, the creation can judge the creator. If God has a good reason for the fall, perhaps God should say something.

Why are man laws instituted (I mean the real purpose)?

Once again, who was it that decided take of the tree?

So what you're saying is that if God was human he'd be culpable under our laws, but since he's God he isn't? And you don't see a problem with that statement?

No, What I am saying is that our pathetic laws do not apply to God. Laws are put in place for a reason - one you have yet to explain.

I already said, God desires suffering because:

A. God does what God most desires.
B. God set a system that God knew would fail. [implies omniscience]
C. God could have set up a system that did not fail, but did not. [implies omnipotence]
C. The failure of the system God set up caused suffering.

You will have to do better than this. This circular reasoning falls flat when you stop spinning. You still have yet to settle upon the why and have been stuck on the what.

Unless you can find fault with the above, God's desire was our suffering. Note that if you eliminate omnipotence and/or omniscience, the problem can go away. Christian philosophers in the past have done so.

I don't need to, mainly because you have failed to support your original assertions.

the "God gave us freewill" argument? If so, God could have created us with the ability to choose to cause suffering, but never to do so. This wouldn't affect our freewill.

That's just it, He did.

This also doesn't address natural suffering - disease, accidents, etc. Why aren't we all built like Superman?

Superman is a man-made dream of what it would be like to be invincible. A pathetic attempt the relieve ourselves of the real world we live in.. A world we are now living in is temporary. Mans impatience and lack of ability to cope only make the world we live in that much worse. The suffering we endure is the result of the fallen world we live in.

MethodMan · Aug 3, 2009

Gracchus said:
A few points:

Many assert, even demand, that God be omniscient and omnipotent. This involves contradiction, paradox, and impossibility. The universe is the way it is, and could not be otherwise.

If humans have free will, then much of human misery could be eliminated or ameliorated. Humans, by and large, are selfish, greedy, malicious, vicious, lying, stealing hypocrites. Those who aren't, by and large, tolerate those who are, admire them, or aspire to emulate them. They justify poverty and glorify war.

Some, warned that they cannot serve two masters, choose to serve money, war, or government, all the while shouting, "Jesus is Lord!"

Don't blame God because you have chosen to rob, enslave, murder and torture. Don't blame God for poisoning and destroying your lives. Americans especially, have chosen ignorance over knowledge, greed over justice, violence over reason, lust over love.

We have been given the keys to the Kingdom, and we choose to live in Hell. Justice is satisfied.

Well, We can choose not to live like this. Our problem is when you encounter those that will not. There is a lot of pain in the world. People cope very differently. Some look inward and live miserable lives. Some look upwards. It really is a simple choice.

Penumbra · Aug 3, 2009

Gracchus said:
Don't blame God because you have chosen to rob, enslave, murder and torture. Don't blame God for poisoning and destroying your lives. Americans especially, have chosen ignorance over knowledge, greed over justice, violence over reason, lust over love.

What about hurricanes, childhood leukemia, miscarriages?

MethodMan said:
Well, We can choose not to live like this. Our problem is when you encounter those that will not. There is a lot of pain in the world. People cope very differently. Some look inward and live miserable lives. Some look upwards. It really is a simple choice.

Many look upward- some see Jesus, others see Allah, others see Krishna, and so forth. Explain how it's simple.

-Lyn

Gracchus · Aug 3, 2009

Penumbra said:
What about hurricanes, childhood leukemia, miscarriages?

Maybe if we weren't spending so much on war, and feeding our own greed, we could build to withstand hurricanes, research diseases and congenital defects. These are not problems that can be solved while we are spending our resources and energy on wars to make the plutocrats richer.

Many look upward- some see Jesus, others see Allah, others see Krishna, and so forth. Explain how it's simple.

If the ones who see Jesus would really do the right thing even at the cost of their own lives, if the Muslims would practice charity and mercy as they are enjoined, if the Hindus actually acknowledged the divinity in others, in short, if people actually lived up to their professed high ideals, the world would be a better place, and getting better. But the road to Hell is paved with the good intentions discarded by those on the way, for good and practical reasons. All you have to do to get out of Hell is to quit living in such a way as to make a Hell of wherever you are. It is simple, no?

:wave:

levi501 · Aug 4, 2009

MethodMan said:
You will have to do better than this. This circular reasoning falls flat when you stop spinning. You still have yet to settle upon the why and have been stuck on the what.

This is not circular reasoning nor have you demonstrated it as such.

I've read your posts in this thread and it's a fair assumption that you are utterly clueless as to what a logical argument is much less a falacy.

ToddNotTodd · Aug 4, 2009

MethodMan said:
You can't possibly demonstrate that God wants us to suffer. Try again.

I already did...

A. God does what God most desires.
B. God set a system that God knew would fail. [implies omniscience]
C. God could have set up a system that did not fail, but did not. [implies omnipotence]
C. The failure of the system God set up caused suffering.

The only conclusion of this is that God desires suffering.

MethodMan said:
Why are man laws instituted (I mean the real purpose)?

Once again, who was it that decided take of the tree?

Law are instituted to keep order in society. God, as an agent who acts in society, would be subject to those laws.

And once again, the person who makes a decision isn't always the only culpable party to the results of that decision.

MethodMan said:
No, What I am saying is that our pathetic laws do not apply to God. Laws are put in place for a reason - one you have yet to explain.

I just did.

MethodMan said:
You will have to do better than this. This circular reasoning falls flat when you stop spinning. You still have yet to settle upon the why and have been stuck on the what.

You'll have to explain why you think the argument is circular. You didn't address any of the points at all. Either find a specific flaw with the argument or accept it.

MethodMan said:
I don't need to, mainly because you have failed to support your original assertions.

Explain in detail why I haven't.

MethodMan said:
That's just it, He did.

No, that's obviously not true. If God had endowed Adam and Eve with the ability to choose to cause suffering, but never the inclination, then they wouldn't have eaten from the tree, because eating from the tree caused... suffering.

MethodMan said:
Superman is a man-made dream of what it would be like to be invincible. A pathetic attempt the relieve ourselves of the real world we live in.. A world we are now living in is temporary. Mans impatience and lack of ability to cope only make the world we live in that much worse. The suffering we endure is the result of the fallen world we live in.

You didn't answer the question. Why didn't God make us like Superman, i.e. impervious to harm?

MethodMan · Aug 4, 2009

ToddNotTodd said:
I already did...

ToddNotTodd said:
A. God does what God most desires.
B. God set a system that God knew would fail. [implies omniscience]
C. God could have set up a system that did not fail, but did not. [implies omnipotence]
C. The failure of the system God set up caused suffering.

The only conclusion of this is that God desires suffering.

God's desire was to create a being with the capability to love. What is the opposite of love?

Did Adam and Eve die? No - Then what did God mean when He said they would surely die? His warning that decisions have consequence.

You conclusion actually ignores God's true desire for us. Therefore, your reasoning is in fact faulty. Your only see the pain and suffering of the fallen world yet have ignored the love. Why is that?

Law are instituted to keep order in society. God, as an agent who acts in society, would be subject to those laws.

But God does not act in society. Try again.

And once again, the person who makes a decision isn't always the only culpable party to the results of that decision.

That would be when that person share a responsibility. You can't claim ignorance now. You have been informed. You just don't like the standard set. One much higher than anything man can think up.

You'll have to explain why you think the argument is circular. You didn't address any of the points at all. Either find a specific flaw with the argument or accept it.

You state God wants suffering - god caused suffering therefore God wants suffering. Just because you add a few lines agreeing to omniscience and omnipotence and call it a supported argument.

No, that's obviously not true. If God had endowed Adam and Eve with the ability to choose to cause suffering, but never the inclination, then they wouldn't have eaten from the tree, because eating from the tree caused... suffering.

Gen 2:
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
He gave them the very same human body as Jesus (Known to us as the second Adam,). Jesus never gave into sin (Taking on the fruit). Adam had the same yet could not control the urge, much like the rest of mankind.

You didn't answer the question. Why didn't God make us like Superman, i.e. impervious to harm?

Descisions have consequence. You want to remove that consequence even if the consequence affects others that we care for.

Culpability

Legend

Iconoclast

Legend

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Iconoclast

The Emperor has no clothes.

"God"? What do you mean??

Legend

Naturalist

Iconoclast

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Legend

Traveler

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Iconoclast

Legend

Similar threads