How to Judge a Deity…

Xtians like pudge are just defending their deity because if they went ahead and admitted that their version of g0dd really did command immoral acts they’d probably implode. Xtian apologists haven’t a leg to stand on in this debate and they KNOW IT which is why they persist in arguing long after their cause has been lost in hopes we’ll give up and leave them to their delusions.

“it is a logically impossibility for God to act immorally” If gOd must conform to our notions of logic, then he isn’t omnipotent. If he doesn’t have to conform to our notions of logic, then what he does may or may be absurd – he’s truly beyond our understanding and we’re in no position to call him moral or immoral. Neither possibility is easy to reconcile with traditional Christian beliefs. All such problems of course vanish if we simply accept that no gOd exists.

“Satan, for his part, acts as a free agent to confound and twist the definition of who God” And who created Satan? Who set the rules of this game? It’s sophistry to claim that gOd can’t do anything immoral – but his creations can within boundaries he himself has set. It’s as if I created a vicious pit bull in a lab and then set it free and said, “Oh, I’M innocent – it’s the pit bull that’s creating havoc out there, not me!” It’s worse, actually, since I don’t claim omnipotence – only an understanding of what’s likely to happen.

And AUUR, to spring board off of what you’re saying: In law and in morality, we are responsible for, say, our pets and their actions. If that pit bull did indeed bite someone, I have to pay that person’s medical bills and possibly be fined or owe him/her pain and suffering should the judge order it. I think the very notion that people can claim “God is moral because God is moral” isbasically giving God arbitrary free reign and simultaneously making it all up as they go along. God is omnipotent and omniscient… but isn’t responsible for His creations’ behavior? Something ain’t right.

I will attempt to answer this, because somehow the main essence of what I’ve attempted to say still isn’t getting through. Maybe if I look for another formulation than my own it will take us someplace positive. I’ll see what I can come up with before we start dealing with all kinds of tangents.

Btw…now that I’ve mentioned tangents… I don’t think this debate is really about God’s nature at all (or how we would judge the claims made about various deities). I think this debate is centrally about the problem of evil. Namely… 1. I am positing the existence of a optimally good God. 2. Evil exists (and then, where you’re wanting to go with this) 3. God must therefore be evil.

Quick note for AUUB–because it’s been so long since we’ve talked. How are you? As for your point, it’s a misrepresentation of what I’m saying. I’m positing a world created by a being with certain qualities, including the creation of free agents who can choose to act against the qualities and wishes of the creator. That God “knows” how these agents will act does not put their choices on him.

” I think this debate is centrally about the problem of evil.” You are wrong. “Namely… 1. I am positing the existence of a optimally good God.” Stop here. Consider that I accept this premise. There is an optimally good supernatural being. There also exists an evil being. How do you know which one is optimally good? This is NOT the problem of evil. How do you know which one is optimally good? How do you know you chose the right one?

That’s a helpful clarification for me. Thanks. My answer to knowing the difference between the good being and the evil one is tied to my first principles about the nature of the universe. I would hold that one being was not created and the other was. The pre-existent being (I know it begs questions about where God came from) is good because he was the one who made everything else.

The reason for calling him “good” in this sense then, would be that he made anything at all. The “evil” being was also made by a “good” God, but I would argue that rather than being God’s opposite, Satan is simply a created being that strayed from doing good because of the free agency granted to him, and that in its essence, immoral behavior is following after that pattern: agency gone awry.

My thought about the problem of evil entered in at this point. The question of God knowingly creating a universe where evil was possible often leads into the problem of evil. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

“My answer to knowing the difference between the good being and the evil one is tied to my first principles about the nature of the universe. I would hold that one being was not created and the other was. The pre-existent being (I know it begs questions about where God came from) is good because he was the one who made everything else.” Ok, now I’ll grant that one of the two created the entire universe — pre-existing and made everything. The one named “God” claims to have created everything. If Satan lied and claimed same thing, you have no basis for choosing God to be good and Satan to be evil. I can grant you as much as I want here. All it takes is for one of the two to lie about his own true nature for you to be stuck with ZERO justification for deciding what is Good and what is Evil.

So you’re saying that the nature of the two beings is not knowable? That there is no qualitative or quantitative means by which to differentiate between the being who is telling the truth and the one who is lying? There would be no means by which humans could logically and rationally declare a difference between the two which would serve as enough evidence to name the truthteller from the liar?

Btw…looking at the notes again, I think my question about the problem of evil springs from AUUB’s notes, not from yours. I usually assume you’re both trying to make the same argument from the similar premises. Perhaps that wasn’t the case here.

“Quick note for AUUB–because it’s been so long since we’ve talked. How are you?” – StealthPudge18 I’m good, thanks. Hope you are, too.

“I usually assume you’re both trying to make the same argument from the similar premises. Perhaps that wasn’t the case here.” Yeah, BUM is pursuing one line of thought, I’m pursuing another. Feel free to ignore me until you finish with his.

I’m still working on my formulation. I’ll be posting it some time in the next couple of days. I’ll confess though, if you’re going to grant me that an optimally good God exists, along with another being who is evil, but you won’t grant that there is any way rationally to prove it, that spending the time finishing the work I’ve done is useless. Our variance is with God being knowable.

“along with another being who is evil, but you won’t grant that there is any way rationally to prove it, that spending the time finishing the work I’ve done is useless. Our variance is with God being knowable.” This is at least partly what I’m trying to find out. How could it be knowable? By their own admission? By some test you’ve devised? You claim to be able to discern this, but I’m baffled that you think you have some way of telling which supernatural being is telling the truth. So, it appears that the ENTIRE foundation of what you consider to be moral — all of it — requires that Satan be honest about himself. Which seems a pretty flimsy thing to base your entire notion of morality on.

If you’re looking for a naturalistic way to prove a metaphysical reality (which the naturalistic view discounts the existence of anything metaphysical as a matter of course) of course there are going to be difficulties. The question is not really about morality then, but rather about your belief that there is a lack of proof for God. So again, we’re back to what proof you’d accept.

“If you’re looking for a naturalistic way to prove a metaphysical reality (which the naturalistic view discounts the existence of anything metaphysical as a matter of course) of course there are going to be difficulties.” – StealthPudge18 No. I’m granting you that 2 supernatural beings exist. God and Satan. And you can communicate with both of them. How much more generous could an atheist be? How did you decide which to call your master and which to call your enemy? My claim is, you have NO basis for morality even given that these 2 supernatural beings exist; even with lines of communication with them. So again, how did you decide which to call your master and which to call your enemy? Flip a coin?