The Problem of Evil

[abacabb3]

Then you should re-read my posts.

Yeah, you avoided actually pointing out which premise of the argument was wrong.

And you don't see anything wrong with that? You see nothing wrong with God permitting all manner of evil solely so that he can appear merciful and just?

No. Because I operate from the perspective that we deserve worse than the evils that befall us in this life.

Why? And how do you know what the greatest possible good of the deity is in order to work towards it?

Logically speaking, if the universe revolves around man, then the best possible end for man is that everything works out for his maximized benefit and enjoyment, correct?

So, if the universe revolves around God, the best possible end is that everything works out for His own benefit.

Can you demonstrate that we live in a theocentric universe?

I don't need to, simply because I think that it is just as unsubstantiated as an anthropocentric universe. If we cannot actually prove what the focal point of the universe really is, then there is no grounds to actually know whether the Deity is unjust or not. He would only be unjust if He was working to the injury of what in the universe actually carries any real meaning.


For what it is worth, I think it is highly suggestive that the universe revolves around the creator and not the creation.

 

[abacabb3]

for example, he's telling us all about what the creator wants, when he hasn't even established the creator being in question even exists.

Fair enough. Granted, Augustine is only making a plausible argument as to how a God, who is presuppositionally good, can be good with the existence of evil. No one denies we can presuppose God to be evil, or non existant, or anything else. The point is, there is no contradiction in there being a good God and yet have evil be part of His creation, as long as the good God deems it better and judges rightly that this is the case.

So really, what you have to show, why this would not be the case in order to disprove the argument.

As for your second paragraph, it makes no sense at all. What are you even trying to ask?

You said Augustine has to substantiate the existence of a Creator to make his argument. I said that you would have to establish the non-existence of the same in order to make your argument. What's so tough to understand?

 

[abacabb3]

The bacteria "chose" (for lack of a better word) to invade your body, your body is on the defensive against harmful bacteria.

The bacteria were here first, they didn't chose for your body to take their space.

However, you're strawmanning my argument, I never said anything in regards to what I personally like or don't like. In fact, I clearly stated that morality is based on objective consequences of actions. My subjective opinions about those objective facts can be wrong, therefore morality is not rooted in my subjective opinion. The goal is to match up my subjective opinion with objective reality as best as possible.

You are ignoring the obvious. You are entering the argument with presuppositions, which is fine, but you have to be honest about that. "Objective morality" does not exist. Morality is subjective.

So, if you are saying, "Well, that's all pie in the sky stuff, I'm talking about the obvious such as starving children in Cambodia," then good. Let's talk about obvious stuff. If you say those starving children make God bad, then you are presupposing that if children starve this is a "bad" thing for the universe. Sure, it's bad for us human beings with human sympathies, but is it actually bad for the universe?

For it to be, the universe would have to be anthropocentric. There is no avoiding this conclusion.

Of course morality is anthropocentric, the only things that matter in regards to morality are actions, intent and consequences. Where there are no living beings, there is no morality.

Good, we are making progress here. Sure, by man's measure, God is not just. Men are also not just either, but by our own measure then we are all in the same boat.

However, what if we use God's measure, is that still true? Or, what if we realized that suffering was not bad enough, because the just consequence of sin is far more suffering?

If I acquire a bacterial infection, that means bacteria have invaded a part of my body. By necessity that means my body must have existed prior to the bacteria invading it, which renders your statement moot.

No, those bacteria were descendants of other bacteria, you invaded their space.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You say there is a problem of evil, personally I am a conceptual skeptic about the issue philosophically. The one who makes the positive truth claim has the burden, not the one who denies that there is even an issue.

If you have a god that is defined as all knowing, all powerful and omnibenevolent (all loving), then that god can not possibly allow evil things to happen to his "children". Any parent that loves their child, and has the power to prevent major harm to their child would have a moral obligation to do so.

Instead, we have a world where innocent people are killed in horrific ways. Natural disasters, disease, etc. This is not the purposeful creation of a loving deity.

Well, nothing in this whole discussion is substantive, it is all based upon a subjective notion of what evil even is. That's why I think Augustine's arguments are so fitting. If evil, under any circumstance, can lead to greater good, it defangs the one who wishes to argue that the existence of evil is necessarily bad.

If god is all powerful, then he can also figure out a way to the greater good without the need for evil. Remember, he created the rules by which this universe operates. If you require evil to get to good, it's only because god wanted it that way. That makes him complicit in evil, and therefore not omnibenevolent.

How do you know that? Redemption is impossible without the existence of something evil that made something need redemption.

Because your god is defined as all powerful. If he can't create a redemptive process without evil, then there is something he can not do. That would mean he is not all powerful.

For example, your god could just forgive someone. Humans are capable of forgiveness under those circumstances, so your god must be capable of it as well.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Fair enough. Granted, Augustine is only making a plausible argument as to how a God, who is presuppositionally good, can be good with the existence of evil. No one denies we can presuppose God to be evil, or non existant, or anything else. The point is, there is no contradiction in there being a good God and yet have evil be part of His creation, as long as the good God deems it better and judges rightly that this is the case.

So really, what you have to show, why this would not be the case in order to disprove the argument.

No, the point is given the universe as we see it, the best we can hope for is an amoral god (if a god exists).

Christians generally claim that god is all loving and all good, if that is the case, then an all good god by definition can not create something that is at least partially evil.

On the flip side, there are good things in the universe as well, so using the same reasoning, this god can not also be all bad. Hence, if a god exists, it's extremely likely he's an amoral one.

You said Augustine has to substantiate the existence of a Creator to make his argument. I said that you would have to establish the non-existence of the same in order to make your argument. What's so tough to understand?

Except you're wrong... We are addressing Augustine's argument. Al I have to show is that his assertions are not supported in order to discredit his argument. You yourself admitted that Augustine has not established that what he speaks about has any connection to actual objective reality.

In short, if he can't establish his god exists, I don't need to prove it doesn't in order to not take his argument seriously. Once it can be shown that the being he is talking about is real, then we have reason to view his writings as credible.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

This answer is particularly repugnant because to every evil action one is simply left saying "It's good that God allowed that to happen!" Examined closely, it's simply an attempt to turn God's non-intervention into a higher good in every single circumstance. I don't see how anyone can call anything evil on this view because, in so far as God allows it by not intervening, it is "good".

Christianity teaches that all things work together for the good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.

Keep this in mind.

Need an example?

Jesus's betrayal, farce of a trial, torture, and execution by crucifixion.

All of the above were instigated and carried out by the hands of evil, sinful men.

God bringing good from man's evil actions makes those actions no less evil. They are still evil. Murdering an innocent man on trumped up false charges is evil however you slice it.

What came of it? How did it end up all working out?

Nothing less than salvation for the world my friend.

 

[abacabb3]

If you have a god that is defined as all knowing, all powerful and omnibenevolent (all loving), then that god can not possibly allow evil things to happen to his "children".

Why can't He unless his "children" are the focal point of the universe?

Any parent that loves their child, and has the power to prevent major harm to their child would have a moral obligation to do so.

Who said all of us, or any of us are His "children?" An all-loving God can be indifferent to homo sapiens that evoluted out of mud after all. They are morally equivalent to pond scum.

If god is all powerful, then he can also figure out a way to the greater good without the need for evil.

Well, I suppose if He can contradict the law of non-contradiction, but if that's this case we cannot have a meaningful conversation about it. Unless you can demonstrate the complete absence of evil is better than its partial existence, then I don't think you are making a point here.

Because your god is defined as all powerful. If he can't create a redemptive process without evil, then there is something he can not do.

See above reply.

 

[abacabb3]

No, the point is given the universe as we see it, the best we can hope for is an amoral god (if a god exists).

Personally, I believe a just God would put us all in hell. We all, by our own free will, do evil. Why even give us any period of time that is not damnation? So, it is a matter of perspective, in my view.

Being that the above is internally consistent logically, then this means that a moral deity can coexist with there being evil in its creation.

Christians generally claim that god is all loving and all good, if that is the case, then an all good god by definition can not create something that is at least partially evil.

Unless a complete absence of evil is less good than its partial existence.

On the flip side, there are good things in the universe as well, so using the same reasoning, this god can not also be all bad. Hence, if a god exists, it's extremely likely he's an amoral one.

That's possible, but again, I don't think we can make a objective evaluation of something so subjective.

Except you're wrong... We are addressing Augustine's argument. Al I have to show is that his assertions are not supported in order to discredit his argument. You yourself admitted that Augustine has not established that what he speaks about has any connection to actual objective reality.

I don't think any of this has objective reality. The point is, if we are even arguing about God being possibly evil, you already are working with the presupposition that God exists. So, based upon that presupposition which you are already are working with, you must evaluate Augustine's argument. You can't just turn it off without turning off the whole conversation.

In short, if he can't establish his god exists...

We can't establish that Epicurus' god exists, whats your point?

I don't need to prove it doesn't in order to not take his argument seriously. Once it can be shown that the being he is talking about is real, then we have reason to view his writings as credible.

So, I suppose there is nothing left to talk about, the whole question is incomprehensible.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The bacteria were here first, they didn't chose for your body to take their space.

My body was necessarily there before the bacteria invaded it. I'm not sure how you're missing that fairly obvious point...

You are ignoring the obvious. You are entering the argument with presuppositions, which is fine, but you have to be honest about that. "Objective morality" does not exist. Morality is subjective.

Except it's not a presupposition... I'm giving you the reason for why my position is justified. You're simply making a bald assertion. If anyone has a presupposition, it's you.

So, if you are saying, "Well, that's all pie in the sky stuff, I'm talking about the obvious such as starving children in Cambodia," then good. Let's talk about obvious stuff. If you say those starving children make God bad, then you are presupposing that if children starve this is a "bad" thing for the universe. Sure, it's bad for us human beings with human sympathies, but is it actually bad for the universe?

I have addressed this point at least twice now, again, I'm not sure what you're missing.

The universe is irrelevant. What matters is our actions towards others, our intent, and the consequences of those actions.

Starving children in Cambodia make absolutely no difference to the Oort cloud, or the Andromeda Galaxy. I don't see how that lack of difference to the universe as a whole is relevant either.

What matters is the consequences of your actions to people it actually matters to. That may be people directly affected, or friends, family members or the society at large.

For it to be, the universe would have to be anthropocentric. There is no avoiding this conclusion.

Which is a ridiculous assertion. The universe at large is completely irrelevant to morality or moral judgments. What matters are the people involved with the relevant situation.

Good, we are making progress here. Sure, by man's measure, God is not just. Men are also not just either, but by our own measure then we are all in the same boat.

Correction, some men are not just. At large I'd say most people live their lives pretty morally.

That's not to say anyone is perfect, but that's also irrelevant. A lack of perfection does not preclude you from being able to judge what is and what is not moral.

Furthermore, god is said to be a perfect moral being. If that is the case, then he should be held to a standard of absolute perfection. The world as we see it can not be the product of an absolutely perfect moral being. An absolutely perfect moral being would not allow someone to suffer through something like leukemia.

However, what if we use God's measure, is that still true? Or, what if we realized that suffering was not bad enough, because the just consequence of sin is far more suffering?

Who determines what sin is, and what the consequences of sin are? Is that not your god?

No, those bacteria were descendants of other bacteria, you invaded their space.

Seriously? You can't seriously be trying to argue that.

Ok, fine... lets go there.

Humans are the descendants of Prokaryotes. Bacteria split off from our line of prokaryotic life about 3.5 billion years ago. So, depending how you look at it, we have either been here the same amount of time since we all share one common ancestor, or we have been here longer since bacteria split off from our line early in the history of life.

Or perhaps you want to put forward an argument that isn't utterly ridiculous.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Christianity teaches that all things work together for the good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.

Keep this in mind.

Need an example?

Jesus's betrayal, farce of a trial, torture, and execution by crucifixion.

All of the above were instigated and carried out by the hands of evil, sinful men.

Actually, it was instigated by your god who apparently sent Jesus to earth with the intent of him being tortured and executed.

The question is, when man does it, you think it's the evil act of corrupt sinful beings. When you look at it from the position that god did it, it somehow becomes a good and holy act of benevolence. How is that not a double standard?

God bringing good from man's evil actions makes those actions no less evil. They are still evil. Murdering an innocent man on trumped up false charges is evil however you slice it.

So is sending an innocent man with the intent to be murdered on false charges a good act?

What came of it? How did it end up all working out?

Nothing less than salvation for the world my friend.

If this is your gods plan for salvation, I think that closes the case on him being an evil being.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why can't He unless his "children" are the focal point of the universe?

How is that relevant?

Who said all of us, or any of us are His "children?" An all-loving God can be indifferent to homo sapiens that evoluted out of mud after all. They are morally equivalent to pond scum.

How is the theory of evolution relevant? In any regard, we are talking about living beings, so the origin of those beings makes no difference.

To stay on topic though, we are debating Christian theology. I hear all the time about how we are all gods children. Are you saying that is not the case?

Well, I suppose if He can contradict the law of non-contradiction, but if that's this case we cannot have a meaningful conversation about it. Unless you can demonstrate the complete absence of evil is better than its partial existence, then I don't think you are making a point here.

How does that contradict the law of non contradiction?

You have defined your god as all powerful, that means he can do anything (or at least anything logically possible, which I'm willing to grant as a definition if you would like).

It is possible even for us to forgive someone without the need for evil. Therefore it is logically possible, and also I doubt you'd be willing to concede we can do things that god can not.

So, we have established evil is not required for forgiveness, or redemption. Therefore god made the conscious decision to include evil when he did not have to. That is a demonstration he can not be all good.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Personally, I believe a just God would put us all in hell. We all, by our own free will, do evil. Why even give us any period of time that is not damnation? So, it is a matter of perspective, in my view.

Whereas I think it's impossible that a just god would ever create a place like hell. Eternal punishment for a finite crime is by definition an unjust act.

Being that the above is internally consistent logically, then this means that a moral deity can coexist with there being evil in its creation.

Internally consistent is irrelevant. Fictional stories are internally consistent, that doesn't mean they're true or have any bearing on reality. The Star Trek universe is internally consistent.

Unless a complete absence of evil is less good than its partial existence.

Evil and good are opposites of each other. You can't make a perfectly good situation better by adding evil into the mix.

That's like saying you have perfectly white sheets, but you can make them even whiter by adding in a little bit of black dye. It doesn't work.

You can't make something "more perfect" by adding in the opposite of that thing.

That's possible, but again, I don't think we can make a objective evaluation of something so subjective.

Well, it all comes down to how you want to define your god. Some gods can be disproven as defined, and I think any god deemed to be all powerful, all knowing and morally perfect is one of those gods.

An amoral deistic god can't be disproven, however we also have no reason to believe one exists either.

I don't think any of this has objective reality. The point is, if we are even arguing about God being possibly evil, you already are working with the presupposition that God exists.

So, based upon that presupposition which you are already are working with, you must evaluate Augustine's argument. You can't just turn it off without turning off the whole conversation.

No I'm not. If we were having a debate over the ethics of Darth Vader in Star Wars, that does not require us to believe we are debating about a real person. You can discuss the ethics of a fictional being in a story, which is exactly how I personally view god.

We can't establish that Epicurus' god exists, whats your point?

We can't establish that any god exists. Until we can, then we can't claim to know anything about what the "real" god wants, or if there really is a god at all. To do so would be fundamentally dishonest.

So, I suppose there is nothing left to talk about, the whole question is incomprehensible.

Perhaps, until it can be demonstrated what he has to say has a bearing on reality at least.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Actually, it was instigated by your god who apparently sent Jesus to earth with the intent of him being tortured and executed.

Jesus was the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world.

That is another way of saying that before God began creating, it was already known and a part of the grand plan that Jesus would have to eventually die in our place.

So yes it is true, if God had not created us then there would have been no need for Christ to die. If this is what you meant by your statement above, then you are correct.

This in no way makes the evil men any less culpable for their actions though. They still chose to betray and murder an innocent man because they were jealous of Him.

God knowing someone is going to do something before it happens does not mean that He causes them to do it. It just means He knows what they are going to do.

To illustrate, I know that if I give my children the choice to play with their toys or sit down and do their homework, they are going to choose to play with their toys. But just because I know they will make this choice doesn't mean that I cause them to play with their toys. They are the ones choosing, not me. They choose freely to play with the toys.

The question is, when man does it, you think it's the evil act of corrupt sinful beings. When you look at it from the position that god did it, it somehow becomes a good and holy act of benevolence. How is that not a double standard?

God giving men the ability to make choices and to choose His will or their own is not evil. It is good. It is good to be free. It is good to be able to choose, is it not?

Is that not the rallying cry of the pro-choicers? Is that not the rallying cry of those in bondage and those under the yoke of tyranny?

Give us our freedom! We want the right to be free to choose to (fill in the blank)!

Is that not the rallying cry of those who want to be free from religious persecution and the influence of religion?

Is that not what you want? Freedom?

It is good to be free to choose. But if we are free to choose, then that means that some will choose evil.

So is sending an innocent man with the intent to be murdered on false charges a good act?

Christ was sent to atone for the sins of mankind and to show us who God is. So it is for these reasons, and a thousand and a thousand more, that Christ coming into this world was good.

If this is your gods plan for salvation, I think that closes the case on him being an evil being.

As the gentleman said earlier, it is a matter of perspective.

Personally, I can think of no better way that God could have procured salvation for us or a better way that He could have shown us how much He loved us than to go through what He did for us.

Has it not been written: No greater love has a man than this, to lay down his life for his friends.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yeah, you avoided actually pointing out which premise of the argument was wrong.

I'm not even convinced that there is an argument. As I noted previously, it's distilled quite simply into a single statement: "God works in mysterious ways."

No. Because I operate from the perspective that we deserve worse than the evils that befall us in this life.

Why?

Logically speaking, if the universe revolves around man, then the best possible end for man is that everything works out for his maximized benefit and enjoyment, correct?

So, if the universe revolves around God, the best possible end is that everything works out for His own benefit.

I don't need to, simply because I think that it is just as unsubstantiated as an anthropocentric universe. If we cannot actually prove what the focal point of the universe really is, then there is no grounds to actually know whether the Deity is unjust or not. He would only be unjust if He was working to the injury of what in the universe actually carries any real meaning.

You haven't even demonstrated that a "focal point" is necessary. If God were the focal point, then working towards his injury would be futile anyway, given that he cannot be harmed. We, however, can be harmed in various ways.

If we cannot actually prove what the focal point of the universe really is, then there is no grounds to actually know whether the Deity is unjust or not.

There is also no grounds for knowing whether he is just then. An important point given that Christians frequently praise him as just and merciful.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Jesus was the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world.

That is another way of saying that before God began creating, it was already known and a part of the grand plan that Jesus would have to eventually die in our place.

From that alone I can conclude that your god is not a moral being.

If he would purposefully set up a world that he knew was going to fall, then plan to kill an innocent person to save a minority of people on that planet, while allowing the others to suffer eternal torment, then your god is a sadistic monster.

So yes it is true, if God had not created us then there would have been no need for Christ to die. If this is what you meant by your statement above, then you are correct.

If your god is all powerful, then he had the option to create us with absolutely no need for Christ to die.

If it was outside of his power to create a universe where Christ didn't have to die, that means that your god is not all powerful, and furthermore something other than your god is ultimately governing the rules by which this universe operates.

This in no way makes the evil men any less culpable for their actions though. They still chose to betray and murder an innocent man because they were jealous of Him.

Ok, so again, what does it say about your god to decide to send an innocent man to be murdered? That's no more moral than the actions of the men.

God knowing someone is going to do something before it happens does not mean that He causes them to do it. It just means He knows what they are going to do.

Well, not really. If god is all knowing, and knows what a person will do depending on how he chooses to create that person, then how that person is created will send him on an inevitable path.

In short, an omniscient creator and created people with free will are mutually exclusive ideas. If god wires your brain to work a certain way, you can not step outside of your natural thought patterns and choose a different path, it's impossible.

To illustrate, I know that if I give my children the choice to play with their toys or sit down and do their homework, they are going to choose to play with their toys. But just because I know they will make this choice doesn't mean that I cause them to play with their toys. They are the ones choosing, not me. They choose freely to play with the toys.

If you designed them knowing they will choose the toys given that choice, then their decision is ultimately a consequence of your design.

Furthermore, if you designed them in a way that they'd turn out to be people that loved doing homework, then their choice to want to do homework is also ultimately a consequence of your design.

God giving men the ability to make choices and to choose His will or their own is not evil. It is good. It is good to be free. It is good to be able to choose, is it not?

Except what you are describing is one of those logical impossibilities. If god has a master plan, and designs people knowing what their decisions will be, then free will is impossible.

For example, can everybody choose to not abide by god's master plan? If the answer is no, we have no free will. If the answer is yes, then god has no way to implement or enforce his master plan.

If you're going to bring up hell as a way of enforcing his master plan, then that eliminates free will as a possibility. God is now using coercion, which negates free will.

Is that not the rallying cry of the pro-choicers? Is that not the rallying cry of those in bondage and those under the yoke of tyranny?

Give us our freedom! We want the right to be free to choose to (fill in the blank)!

Is that not the rallying cry of those who want to be free from religious persecution and the influence of religion?

Is that not what you want? Freedom?

It is good to be free to choose. But if we are free to choose, then that means that some will choose evil.

I'm all for freedom, the problem is if your god exists, then we can never be truly free.

Christ was sent to atone for the sins of mankind and to show us who God is. So it is for these reasons, and a thousand and a thousand more, that Christ coming into this world was good.

Executing an innocent person to pay for the crimes of the guilty is an inherently immoral and unjust act. There is nothing good about it.

As the gentleman said earlier, it is a matter of perspective.

Personally, I can think of no better way that God could have procured salvation for us or a better way that He could have shown us how much He loved us than to go through what He did for us.

He could have said to everyone that they're forgiven without the need for all the bloodshed. That's a better way of doing it.

Has it not been written: No greater love has a man than this, to lay down his life for his friends.

If you slit your own throat as a way of forgiving someone, you're an idiot.

If you slit an innocent persons throat as a way of forgiving someone else, you're a monster.

Period.

 

[talquin]

No, the point is given the universe as we see it, the best we can hope for is an amoral god (if a god exists).

Dave - I greatly enjoy reading your responses here. Thanks for your participation. But I'd say I disagree with you on this one.

I'd say an impotent, but morally good god is a better case than an omnipotent but amoral god.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Dave - I greatly enjoy reading your responses here. Thanks for your participation. But I'd say I disagree with you on this one.

I'd say an impotent, but morally good god is a better case than an omnipotent but amoral god.

Well, it's possible that a morally good but not all powerful god exists, however god in the christian sense usually goes hand in hand with the definition of all powerful.

For example, some Greek gods were good moral agents, but were not all powerful. That style of god is pretty distant from the typical christian idea of god though.

On the flip side, some fundamentalist christian denominations do not believe god is all loving. So, that's why I went that way with my argument.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

From that alone I can conclude that your god is not a moral being.

If he would purposefully set up a world that he knew was going to fall, then plan to kill an innocent person to save a minority of people on that planet, while allowing the others to suffer eternal torment, then your god is a sadistic monster.



If your god is all powerful, then he had the option to create us with absolutely no need for Christ to die.

If it was outside of his power to create a universe where Christ didn't have to die, that means that your god is not all powerful, and furthermore something other than your god is ultimately governing the rules by which this universe operates.



Ok, so again, what does it say about your god to decide to send an innocent man to be murdered? That's no more moral than the actions of the men.



Well, not really. If god is all knowing, and knows what a person will do depending on how he chooses to create that person, then how that person is created will send him on an inevitable path.

In short, an omniscient creator and created people with free will are mutually exclusive ideas. If god wires your brain to work a certain way, you can not step outside of your natural thought patterns and choose a different path, it's impossible.



If you designed them knowing they will choose the toys given that choice, then their decision is ultimately a consequence of your design.

Furthermore, if you designed them in a way that they'd turn out to be people that loved doing homework, then their choice to want to do homework is also ultimately a consequence of your design.



Except what you are describing is one of those logical impossibilities. If god has a master plan, and designs people knowing what their decisions will be, then free will is impossible.

For example, can everybody choose to not abide by god's master plan? If the answer is no, we have no free will. If the answer is yes, then god has no way to implement or enforce his master plan.

If you're going to bring up hell as a way of enforcing his master plan, then that eliminates free will as a possibility. God is now using coercion, which negates free will.



I'm all for freedom, the problem is if your god exists, then we can never be truly free.



Executing an innocent person to pay for the crimes of the guilty is an inherently immoral and unjust act. There is nothing good about it.



He could have said to everyone that they're forgiven without the need for all the bloodshed. That's a better way of doing it.



If you slit your own throat as a way of forgiving someone, you're an idiot.

If you slit an innocent persons throat as a way of forgiving someone else, you're a monster.

Period.

I understand you feel the way you do.

I think we all, as fallible, finite, human beings make very lousy judges when it comes to us trying to fill God's shoes and critique His actions and plans.

We are all weak and frail. We are here today and gone tomorrow. You could die right now from a brain aneurysm while sitting at your desk.

You cannot even keep your heart beating in your chest if it were to suddenly stop.

We are all weak and frail. Even if we take collectively the knowledge possessed by humans on this planet, we know a mere fraction of what can be known regarding our natural world, let alone the spiritual.

So I just think you make a lousy judge of what God should have done or not have done.

Ultimately, God is God all by Himself and does not need your approval or advice on how to run His universe.

You speaking of God the way you do is akin to a child sitting on their father's lap and slapping him in the face. The child would not even be able to slap the father if the father were not holding them and supporting them and allowing them to hit him. Likewise, if it were not for God sustaining you, you would not even be able to muster one breath to praise or criticize.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I understand you feel the way you do.

I think we all, as fallible, finite, human beings make very lousy judges when it comes to us trying to fill God's shoes and critique His actions and plans.

Yet Christians do it all the time, praising him as just, merciful, compassionate, loving, gracious, and so on. Your point here undermines your own ability to praise God's actions as good, since you are, by your own admission, a very lousy judge on this matter.

 

[abacabb3]

My body was necessarily there before the bacteria invaded it...

No, you invaded land that was long inhabited by the forefathers of the bacteria that are in your body. My point in this is to show you that it is a matter of perspective, and so where you place your emphasis will affect the moral judgments one makes.

Except it's not a presupposition...

Yes, presuming the universe is anthropocentric is a presupposition.

The universe is irrelevant. What matters is our actions towards others, our intent, and the consequences of those actions.

Says who?

The universe at large is completely irrelevant to morality or moral judgments.

Not exactly. As the bacteria discussion shows, the perspective in which you take as to what end God should necessarily serve affects your moral judgments of Him. The fact that I can even, at some level, argue that the bacteria are right and you are wrong shows that your view of morality is clearly anthropocentric.

Correction, some men are not just. At large I'd say most people live their lives pretty morally.

If we put a webcam inside of your head that magically showed us all the thoughts and ideas that pop up in your mind, the things you have done and the things that you did not do out of fear of retribution, are you going to come out as white as snow?

Of course not. That's not just you or me. That's everyone.

Furthermore, god is said to be a perfect moral being. If that is the case, then he should be held to a standard of absolute perfection.

Your intellect is too limited to understand what absolute perfection is.

Who determines what sin is, and what the consequences of sin are? Is that not your god?

Again, it is the issue of perspective. Whose measure are we using to judge morality? Further, Christians, Jews, and Muslims can tell you all different things about what God's will even is. Who says any of them are right? I cannot convince you of this, but logically what you can't seem to wrap your head around is that evil can coexist with the God of any of those religions. You may not like the picture they paint, but that is your perspective. You would actually have to rove that your perspective is so absolutely correct, that it is morally binding to the entire universe.

Humans are the descendants of Prokaryotes. Bacteria split off from our line of prokaryotic life about 3.5 billion years ago. So, depending how you look at it, we have either been here the same amount of time since we all share one common ancestor, or we have been here longer since bacteria split off from our line early in the history of life.

Or, if you want to play that game, we all evoluted out of the same pond of slime, and being that pond slime does not have any real value, if anything happens to it, even if sophisticated evoluted pond slime has the illusion of consciousness, it is morally equivalent to crushing a rock or manipulating any other inaminate object.

Again, it is all perspective, and until you realize that your anthropocentric perspective of morality is what leads you to your moral judgments, I don't know what else I can say.