4 ms·

If you believe in free will, God couldn't be causing any of the suffering to happen. People have been given the complete choice to do whatever they please, and

by kirse 17y ago

If you believe in free will, God couldn't be causing any of the suffering to happen. People have been given the complete choice to do whatever they please, and this world is a product of that. This world's suffering is our own. Allowing something to happen != causing Secondly, who are you, in your own infinitesimally small amount of knowledge, to question an omniscient, omnipotent being?

ugh 17y ago
You do know that much of human suffering is not caused by humans? Earthquakes, viruses and all that stuff. Oh, yeah, death, too, of course. But I wouldn't be very mad at god because of that. I also wouldn't respect him very much. I'm pretty blind to the suffering of animals or sometimes even other humans (I was much more shocked when I heard about the death of my grandpa than when I heard about the earthquake in Haiti). So I can understand his perspective. But god doesn't exist anyway, so this point is pretty moot. Also: omniscient and omnipotent? Does not compute.
- kirse 17y ago
  But god doesn't exist anyway, so this point is pretty moot. Well then, it is solved! And to think, we've been wondering all these years! I hope your open-mindedness and skepticism (forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe science is one of the biggest champions of this quality), translates well into your other pursuits for knowledge.
  - ugh 17y ago
    So you can’t think there is high probability god doesn’t exist and still be open-minded and a skeptic? Perfect 50:50 agnostics as the only bearers of skepticism and open-mindedness? :)
colah 17y ago
> If you believe in free will, God couldn't be causing any of the suffering to happen. People have been given the complete choice to do whatever they please, and this world is a product of that. This world's suffering is our own. Free will is an elegant answer, if we accept it... But what about natural disasters? >Allowing something to happen != causing No, but Jehova seems to have gone a lot farther than that in the OT. Killing innocent children -- infants even -- for being first-born comes to mind... > Secondly, who are you, in your own infinitesimally small amount of knowledge, to question an omniscient, omnipotent being? Someone who believes that certain things are intrinsically wrong, regardless of whether the perpetrator is God.
- kirse 17y ago
  Free will is an elegant answer, if we accept it... But what about natural disasters? Well, if you are going to assume the existence of God (Jehovah - the Biblical deity) to make your argument, then the simple answer is that yes, we are responsible for our own suffering, starting with Genesis 3. A perfect world would have no suffering. No, but Jehova seems to have gone a lot farther than that in the OT. Killing innocent children -- infants even -- for being first-born comes to mind... Ok, but yet again in your argument, you are assuming the existence of God (who is both all-knowing and all-powerful) and then questioning His ways. Morality is relative to the information one knows. You, not being an omniscient deity, do not have all the information available to make a perfect judgment. I never understand arguments where people temporarily accept the existence of an all-knowing God, question His divine motives (in their limited capacity), and then conclude that he simply could not exist. Even basic logic would tell you "God Exists" does not lead to "Therefore, God does not exist." in the same argument.
  - colah 17y ago
    > Even basic logic would tell you "God Exists" does not lead to "Therefore, God does not exist." in the same argument. Incorrect. A common form argument is: suppose a leads to not a, therefore a can't be true or suppose a leads to contradiction, therefore a can't be true. Arguments of this form have been made on this topic based on morality (counter arguments exist: cf. Descartes). But I'm not trying to do so, anyway. My argument was solely that the God of the Bible is immoral. As the quote goes: "even if a God as described in the Bible does exist, he is not fit for worship due to his low moral standards." There are misotheists who believe Jehova is evil. > Morality is relative to the information one knows. You, not being an omniscient deity, do not have all the information available to make a perfect judgement. I would disagree. I believe that moral absolutes exist and that certain things are intrinsically wrong. I don't need to be omniscient to know that infanticide is wrong. Jehova commits Crimes Against Humanity and Acts of Genocide at several points in the OT.
    - kirse 17y ago
      I would disagree. I believe that moral absolutes exist and that certain things are intrinsically wrong. If you really believe that moral absolutes exist, then you must conclude that there exists some infinite being capable of being the foundation for that moral absolutism. Here's why... Absolute morals (a perfect morality) can only be established by infinite knowledge... A perfect morality is knowing all information at once, weighing all that information, and then making the perfect decision. We as humans are morally relative because we don't know all available information and knowledge. It's why a tribe on some island genuinely believes infanticide is acceptable (they genuinely believe the child is possessed), while you do not (you would know the child has a neurological disorder). As I demonstrated by a simple human example, more information and knowledge = better moral decisions. Thus, an all knowing being, God, is the foundation for an absolute (and perfect) set of morals.

by kirse 17y ago

ugh 17y ago

You do know that much of human suffering is not caused by humans? Earthquakes, viruses and all that stuff. Oh, yeah, death, too, of course. But I wouldn't be very mad at god because of that. I also wouldn't respect him very much. I'm pretty blind to the suffering of animals or sometimes even other humans (I was much more shocked when I heard about the death of my grandpa than when I heard about the earthquake in Haiti). So I can understand his perspective. But god doesn't exist anyway, so this point is pretty moot. Also: omniscient and omnipotent? Does not compute.

kirse 17y ago
But god doesn't exist anyway, so this point is pretty moot. Well then, it is solved! And to think, we've been wondering all these years! I hope your open-mindedness and skepticism (forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe science is one of the biggest champions of this quality), translates well into your other pursuits for knowledge.
- ugh 17y ago
  So you can’t think there is high probability god doesn’t exist and still be open-minded and a skeptic? Perfect 50:50 agnostics as the only bearers of skepticism and open-mindedness? :)

colah 17y ago

> If you believe in free will, God couldn't be causing any of the suffering to happen. People have been given the complete choice to do whatever they please, and this world is a product of that. This world's suffering is our own. Free will is an elegant answer, if we accept it... But what about natural disasters? >Allowing something to happen != causing No, but Jehova seems to have gone a lot farther than that in the OT. Killing innocent children -- infants even -- for being first-born comes to mind... > Secondly, who are you, in your own infinitesimally small amount of knowledge, to question an omniscient, omnipotent being? Someone who believes that certain things are intrinsically wrong, regardless of whether the perpetrator is God.

kirse 17y ago
Free will is an elegant answer, if we accept it... But what about natural disasters? Well, if you are going to assume the existence of God (Jehovah - the Biblical deity) to make your argument, then the simple answer is that yes, we are responsible for our own suffering, starting with Genesis 3. A perfect world would have no suffering. No, but Jehova seems to have gone a lot farther than that in the OT. Killing innocent children -- infants even -- for being first-born comes to mind... Ok, but yet again in your argument, you are assuming the existence of God (who is both all-knowing and all-powerful) and then questioning His ways. Morality is relative to the information one knows. You, not being an omniscient deity, do not have all the information available to make a perfect judgment. I never understand arguments where people temporarily accept the existence of an all-knowing God, question His divine motives (in their limited capacity), and then conclude that he simply could not exist. Even basic logic would tell you "God Exists" does not lead to "Therefore, God does not exist." in the same argument.
- colah 17y ago
  > Even basic logic would tell you "God Exists" does not lead to "Therefore, God does not exist." in the same argument. Incorrect. A common form argument is: suppose a leads to not a, therefore a can't be true or suppose a leads to contradiction, therefore a can't be true. Arguments of this form have been made on this topic based on morality (counter arguments exist: cf. Descartes). But I'm not trying to do so, anyway. My argument was solely that the God of the Bible is immoral. As the quote goes: "even if a God as described in the Bible does exist, he is not fit for worship due to his low moral standards." There are misotheists who believe Jehova is evil. > Morality is relative to the information one knows. You, not being an omniscient deity, do not have all the information available to make a perfect judgement. I would disagree. I believe that moral absolutes exist and that certain things are intrinsically wrong. I don't need to be omniscient to know that infanticide is wrong. Jehova commits Crimes Against Humanity and Acts of Genocide at several points in the OT.
  - kirse 17y ago
    I would disagree. I believe that moral absolutes exist and that certain things are intrinsically wrong. If you really believe that moral absolutes exist, then you must conclude that there exists some infinite being capable of being the foundation for that moral absolutism. Here's why... Absolute morals (a perfect morality) can only be established by infinite knowledge... A perfect morality is knowing all information at once, weighing all that information, and then making the perfect decision. We as humans are morally relative because we don't know all available information and knowledge. It's why a tribe on some island genuinely believes infanticide is acceptable (they genuinely believe the child is possessed), while you do not (you would know the child has a neurological disorder). As I demonstrated by a simple human example, more information and knowledge = better moral decisions. Thus, an all knowing being, God, is the foundation for an absolute (and perfect) set of morals.