God, Moral Evil, and Man's Nature

[Cheerful Charlie]

I have been of the opinion for quite some time that a God who supposedly is the very emboddiemnt of goodness and impeccable morality is hard to square with the existence of man's moral evil. Since Bible and Quran do not support man as having free will, that as an excuse is right out. Satan is a puzzle. There is no Satan warned of in the Torah with God's supposed revelations to the Israelites. Satan as an excuse is a late addition to the mythology. Why tolerate original sin if it cause moral evil? No good answers here from Christians.

Suppose you were a omniscient omnipotent entity, independent of space and time. You are able to conjure matter from nothing, straight from your consciousness.

How would you have handled this creation of Earth thing?

A silly question. Create mankind with a good moral nature. Banish original sin. lots of chocolate bunny trees. No more nasty parasites.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Suppose you were a omniscient omnipotent entity, independent of space and time. You are able to conjure matter from nothing, straight from your consciousness.

How would you have handled this creation of Earth thing?

A silly question. Create mankind with a good moral nature. Banish original sin. lots of chocolate bunny trees. No more nasty parasites.

That takes a being with an intellect. An omniscient, omnipotent entity will by definition lack an intellect, a characteristic that would make it curious and a problem solver.

So it's gonna fuck up a lot, simple as that, which explains its relative mess, not to mention that lots of its followers seem to lack same. Curious.

 

[Bronzeage]

Suppose you were a omniscient omnipotent entity, independent of space and time. You are able to conjure matter from nothing, straight from your consciousness.

How would you have handled this creation of Earth thing?

A silly question. Create mankind with a good moral nature. Banish original sin. lots of chocolate bunny trees. No more nasty parasites.

Please expand on this good moral nature thing. What does that mean? Is this world going to be created for the simple benefit of mankind? Do the parasites need their own God?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We are assured, by religionists, that revelation tells us God is good. Not only good but perfectly good. With as I stated, with a large number of sub-goodnesses. And is omnipotent and creates all. If so, that should have
consequences. A Universe with a perfectly good, all powerful creator God should be qualitatively different from a naturalistic Universe with no God. Why then does this Universe seem to lack a caring, all powerful creator God? And here it is amusing to see the antics of the apologists trying to save appearances.

Genesis 1
²⁸ And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
²⁹ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
³⁰ And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

It seems that our religionists think God did indeed create the world for benefit of man because their sacred revelation tells us exactly that. And we have later "prophecies" such as Isaiah 54 where we are promised a perfect world by God for our benefit.

Really, how far are you going to take this nonsense?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If, for the sake of the discussion, there is an omnipotent being, independent of space and time, who is capable of creating the universe we observe, why would such a being be limited to three choices?

Because these are the only logical choices possible. To posit a hypothetical other choice to avoid the possible choices is a mere rhetorical dodge. It is the equivalent of saying any problems we conceive about God do not really exist even if we cannot think of a solution, a dodgy assertion. We can turn that around, any possible assertion theologians make about atheism has an answer, even if we cannot know it..

Theologians have been somewhat divided on if God can make a contradiction true.

Using logic to force theology into such "defences" is a victory. Special pleading is never really a victory.

But "God" was not limited to just 3 choices, what about :-

4. Not create man at all.
5. Create an alternative to man.

But the theists tell us God created all. So he did not create an alternative to man or decide to not create man. The question thus shifts to why a supposedly ultimately good creator God created us with the nature we have. Why does this perfect God accept the existence of original sin? Or the existence of an evil Satan on Earth?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A silly question. Create mankind with a good moral nature. Banish original sin. lots of chocolate bunny trees. No more nasty parasites.

That takes a being with an intellect. An omniscient, omnipotent entity will by definition lack an intellect, a characteristic that would make it curious and a problem solver.

So it's gonna fuck up a lot, simple as that, which explains its relative mess, not to mention that lots of its followers seem to lack same. Curious.

It has been a very old theological puzzle going back to the middle ages. Does God's will trump God's intellect or does God's intellect cause his willl to be as it is? Or maybe both at the same times as per God's "simplicity".

Of course another issue is, if God is omniscient, there are no puzzles for him to solve.

 

[Bronzeage]

We are assured, by religionists, that revelation tells us God is good. Not only good but perfectly good. With as I stated, with a large number of sub-goodnesses. And is omnipotent and creates all. If so, that should have
consequences. A Universe with a perfectly good, all powerful creator God should be qualitatively different from a naturalistic Universe with no God. Why then does this Universe seem to lack a caring, all powerful creator God? And here it is amusing to see the antics of the apologists trying to save appearances.

Genesis 1
²⁸ And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
²⁹ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
³⁰ And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

It seems that our religionists think God did indeed create the world for benefit of man because their sacred revelation tells us exactly that. And we have later "prophecies" such as Isaiah 54 where we are promised a perfect world by God for our benefit.

Really, how far are you going to take this nonsense?

I asked you the question, because you seem thoroughly dissatisfied the way the first attempt was performed.

I don't put a lot of stock in the descriptions in Genesis. That's only one of many explanations of why the Earth is the way it is. Why such reliance on the one brought to us by a Semitic tribe in the Middle East?

If we were promised a perfect world, and didn't get one, what changes would you make?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We are assured, by religionists, that revelation tells us God is good. Not only good but perfectly good. With as I stated, with a large number of sub-goodnesses. And is omnipotent and creates all. If so, that should have
consequences. A Universe with a perfectly good, all powerful creator God should be qualitatively different from a naturalistic Universe with no God. Why then does this Universe seem to lack a caring, all powerful creator God? And here it is amusing to see the antics of the apologists trying to save appearances.

Genesis 1
²⁸ And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
²⁹ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
³⁰ And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

It seems that our religionists think God did indeed create the world for benefit of man because their sacred revelation tells us exactly that. And we have later "prophecies" such as Isaiah 54 where we are promised a perfect world by God for our benefit.

Really, how far are you going to take this nonsense?

I asked you the question, because you seem thoroughly dissatisfied the way the first attempt was performed.

I don't put a lot of stock in the descriptions in Genesis. That's only one of many explanations of why the Earth is the way it is. Why such reliance on the one brought to us by a Semitic tribe in the Middle East?

If we were promised a perfect world, and didn't get one, what changes would you make?

Billions of people take it seriously as a revelation about God. And have done so for centuries. Upon that, theologians have built a large theology that tries to square the claims of the Bible, Quran, Vedas and other books that claim God is good and the state of reality. I don't take any of these books as revelations either. What I am doing is getting rather pointed about the disconnect of claims about a perfectly good, all powerful God and reality. It doesn't work.
Since a lot of people try to use these books to run our lives, it matters. Its not a matter of what I'd do if I were God, what matters is that these bronze age mythologies have serious problems. Whole herds of apologists try to explain all of this nonsense away. I like to find questions that make their apologies stand out as feeble and silly as they really are at bottom. My original question is one attempt to talk common sense in face of a silly mythological claim about the existence of moral evil from a perfectly creator of the Universe who at bottom, should be held accountable for its actions, pointing out the silliness of that mythology.

If that God creates us and our nature, he had three choices. Why not pick the choice that maximizes the amount of moral good in the Universe. Its a good question with no real answer.

Repeat. I do not take the claims of the Bible et al seriously. But the believers and theologians and priests etc do. Here in Texas, millions of believers who take this all seriously as a revelation from God work overtime to destroy science education in favor of creationism, foist homophobia on us and elect fellow religious troglodytes to office based on these ancient tall tales. I am not offering to tell God how to run the Universe. I just point out that the Bible God mythology doesn't work.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Why such a "reliance" on what the Book of Genesis says? Because it is the basic text underlying Christianity and Islam. Billions take it very seriously indeed.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why such a "reliance" on what the Book of Genesis says? Because it is the basic text underlying Christianity and Islam. Billions take it very seriously indeed.

Re Bronzeage's question, that would be a good start.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why such a "reliance" on what the Book of Genesis says? Because it is the basic text underlying Christianity and Islam. Billions take it very seriously indeed.

It seems you have no argument, other than telling billions of people they are stupid. I'll grant that among billions, there must be some stupid people, but you want to do is gather a crowd to stand behind while you point and laugh at the silly Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

If that God creates us and our nature, he had three choices. Why not pick the choice that maximizes the amount of moral good in the Universe. Its a good question with no real answer.

Again, you want to put limits on an omnipotent being, which is a contradiction of definition. Since you want a choice which maximizes moral good, instead of wondering why God did not favor your preference, could you explain "moral good," as you use it in your argument?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Why such a "reliance" on what the Book of Genesis says? Because it is the basic text underlying Christianity and Islam. Billions take it very seriously indeed.

Re Bronzeage's question, that would be a good start.

Yes. It's really the only question there is.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It seems you have no argument, other than telling billions of people they are stupid. I'll grant that among billions, there must be some stupid people, but you want to do is gather a crowd to stand behind while you point and laugh at the silly Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

If that God creates us and our nature, he had three choices. Why not pick the choice that maximizes the amount of moral good in the Universe. Its a good question with no real answer.

Again, you want to put limits on an omnipotent being, which is a contradiction of definition. Since you want a choice which maximizes moral good, instead of wondering why God did not favor your preference, could you explain "moral good," as you use it in your argument?

I am calling all those theists, wrong. Some indeed are stupid, some just mislead.

Omnipotent being? Revelation, again, tells us God is supposedly good. And list those sub-goodnesses I keep writing about, merciful, just, righteous, compassionate. You cannot wiffle those away with handwaves about an incomprehensible God.

This is not a new argument. Christians have been pulling this one on me for years on the net. Which is why I developed that sub-goodness argument. These concepts found in supposed revelation mean something. In arguments about God's nature, you can't just banish those claims with an airy wave of the hand. Otherwise, all you accomplish is intellectual nihilism. No word means anything if we talk about God? Nonsense!

There are those who argue much of the Bible is allegorical, but that leaves them between two stools. They have no answers about anything and that does not satisfy Bible conservatives, fundamentalists or those wedded to specific theologies such as orthodox Catholicism, Lutheranism, et al. And it certainly won't convince us hard shell atheists.

All those God IS statements of the Bible have meaning.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/isl...vigilantes-should-have-executed-orlando-gays/

Less than three months ago, Islamic scholar Farrokh Sekaleshfar gave a talk at the Husseini Islamic Center just outside Orlando where he said that the sentence for people who are found guilty of homosexuality should be death. Despite this, he is condemning Orlando shooter Omar Mateen for massacring 50 gay people in a club this weekend.
In an interview with Fusion, Sekaleshfar explained that even though he believes in the death penalty for homosexuals, he doesn’t think that gives anyone the right to go out and massacre them at a nightclub.


If words in these supposed revelations have no meaning, explain that to this jerk.

 

[Kharakov]

Charlie's statements remind me of the Chewbacca defense. Holy fuck. They are the Chewbacca defense.

 

[Bronzeage]

It seems you have no argument, other than telling billions of people they are stupid. I'll grant that among billions, there must be some stupid people, but you want to do is gather a crowd to stand behind while you point and laugh at the silly Christians, Jews, and Muslims.


Again, you want to put limits on an omnipotent being, which is a contradiction of definition. Since you want a choice which maximizes moral good, instead of wondering why God did not favor your preference, could you explain "moral good," as you use it in your argument?

I am calling all those theists, wrong. Some indeed are stupid, some just mislead.

Omnipotent being? Revelation, again, tells us God is supposedly good. And list those sub-goodnesses I keep writing about, merciful, just, righteous, compassionate. You cannot wiffle those away with handwaves about an incomprehensible God.

This is not a new argument. Christians have been pulling this one on me for years on the net. Which is why I developed that sub-goodness argument. These concepts found in supposed revelation mean something. In arguments about God's nature, you can't just banish those claims with an airy wave of the hand. Otherwise, all you accomplish is intellectual nihilism. No word means anything if we talk about God? Nonsense!

There are those who argue much of the Bible is allegorical, but that leaves them between two stools. They have no answers about anything and that does not satisfy Bible conservatives, fundamentalists or those wedded to specific theologies such as orthodox Catholicism, Lutheranism, et al. And it certainly won't convince us hard shell atheists.

All those God IS statements of the Bible have meaning.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/isl...vigilantes-should-have-executed-orlando-gays/

Less than three months ago, Islamic scholar Farrokh Sekaleshfar gave a talk at the Husseini Islamic Center just outside Orlando where he said that the sentence for people who are found guilty of homosexuality should be death. Despite this, he is condemning Orlando shooter Omar Mateen for massacring 50 gay people in a club this weekend.
In an interview with Fusion, Sekaleshfar explained that even though he believes in the death penalty for homosexuals, he doesn’t think that gives anyone the right to go out and massacre them at a nightclub.


If words in these supposed revelations have no meaning, explain that to this jerk.

You keep referring to revelation(minor case R), without being specific. There is a Book in the Christian New Testament, titled "Revelation", but there's not a lot about "good" God.

You use a lot of words, but never slow down to define the, as if you assume we all know what you mean and agree with you. The vocabulary has now expanded to include merciful, just, righteous, and compassionate, but without any clue to what these words mean in this context.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I am calling all those theists, wrong. Some indeed are stupid, some just mislead.

Omnipotent being? Revelation, again, tells us God is supposedly good. And list those sub-goodnesses I keep writing about, merciful, just, righteous, compassionate. You cannot wiffle those away with handwaves about an incomprehensible God.

This is not a new argument. Christians have been pulling this one on me for years on the net. Which is why I developed that sub-goodness argument. These concepts found in supposed revelation mean something. In arguments about God's nature, you can't just banish those claims with an airy wave of the hand. Otherwise, all you accomplish is intellectual nihilism. No word means anything if we talk about God? Nonsense!

There are those who argue much of the Bible is allegorical, but that leaves them between two stools. They have no answers about anything and that does not satisfy Bible conservatives, fundamentalists or those wedded to specific theologies such as orthodox Catholicism, Lutheranism, et al. And it certainly won't convince us hard shell atheists.

All those God IS statements of the Bible have meaning.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/isl...vigilantes-should-have-executed-orlando-gays/

Less than three months ago, Islamic scholar Farrokh Sekaleshfar gave a talk at the Husseini Islamic Center just outside Orlando where he said that the sentence for people who are found guilty of homosexuality should be death. Despite this, he is condemning Orlando shooter Omar Mateen for massacring 50 gay people in a club this weekend.
In an interview with Fusion, Sekaleshfar explained that even though he believes in the death penalty for homosexuals, he doesn’t think that gives anyone the right to go out and massacre them at a nightclub.


If words in these supposed revelations have no meaning, explain that to this jerk.

You keep referring to revelation(minor case R), without being specific. There is a Book in the Christian New Testament, titled "Revelation", but there's not a lot about "good" God.

You use a lot of words, but never slow down to define the, as if you assume we all know what you mean and agree with you. The vocabulary has now expanded to include merciful, just, righteous, and compassionate, but without any clue to what these words mean in this context.

Have you never really read the Bible? Or Quran? Yes, these books assure us God is merciful, compassionate, just, righteous et al. Do you need to have each of these words spelled out for you? OK, the Bible gives us many examples of what we are told is a revelation from God that spells these qualities out. I have used the word revelation in its commonest standard meaning that should have left no room for confusion. The books of the Bible are supposedly inspired revelations from God to mankind.

Of course it has been a failing of mine for years now in these sort of debates to assume people have actually read the Bible and have at least a basic understanding of its claims about the nature of God. Is anybody else here confused by these words?

 

[Bronzeage]

You keep referring to revelation(minor case R), without being specific. There is a Book in the Christian New Testament, titled "Revelation", but there's not a lot about "good" God.

You use a lot of words, but never slow down to define the, as if you assume we all know what you mean and agree with you. The vocabulary has now expanded to include merciful, just, righteous, and compassionate, but without any clue to what these words mean in this context.

Have you never really read the Bible? Or Quran? Yes, these books assure us God is merciful, compassionate, just, righteous et al. Do you need to have each of these words spelled out for you? OK, the Bible gives us many examples of what we are told is a revelation from God that spells these qualities out. I have used the word revelation in its commonest standard meaning that should have left no room for confusion. The books of the Bible are supposedly inspired revelations from God to mankind.

Of course it has been a failing of mine for years now in these sort of debates to assume people have actually read the Bible and have at least a basic understanding of its claims about the nature of God. Is anybody else here confused by these words?

If you want to submit text from the Bible, be my guest, but it doesn't respond to any of my questions.

Quite a few of the word you use are confusing, but so far, you have declined to elaborate.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Psalm 145:9 The LORD is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.

Psalm 86:5 For You, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive, And abundant in lovingkindness to all who call upon You.

1 Chronicles 16:34 O give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; For His lovingkindness is everlasting.


Do I really have to post a huge catalog of proof texts for you?

Psalm 25
8 God is fair and just; He corrects the misdirected, Sends them in the right direction.
9 He gives the rejects his hand, And leads them step-by-step.

 

[Bronzeage]

Psalm 145:9 The LORD is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.

Psalm 86:5 For You, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive, And abundant in lovingkindness to all who call upon You.

1 Chronicles 16:34 O give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; For His lovingkindness is everlasting.


Do I really have to post a huge catalog of proof texts for you?

Psalm 25
8 God is fair and just; He corrects the misdirected, Sends them in the right direction.
9 He gives the rejects his hand, And leads them step-by-step.

No, but it's a free country.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Do you understand the concept that most Christians believe the Books of the Bible are revelations from God to mankind?