The Morality of God

[atlashunter]

Claims that Christians make have zero to do with the way things are. Things are what they are. We all draw our conclusions based on the evidence given.

You're correct and that is exactly what Harris is doing. He is taking the christian claims (that there is a God that is all powerful and good, kind, loving, and just) and is contrasting that claim with the hard evidence. The claims do not mesh with reality. Does that prove there is no God? No and Harris isn't claiming that. He says in light of the suffering that goes on that if this God exists he is either unable to intervene or he doesn't care to, impotent or evil. Those are two feasible alternatives to the possibility that there simply is no God.

 

[gemcgrew]

It get's worse than even what Sam Harris says in that clip because not only do Christians refuse to lay any responsibility at the feet of their all powerful God for this suffering, they blame humanity.

It gets much worse. They take the all powerful God, that sweeps 100,000 men, women and children out to sea, and replace Him with a god that loves everybody and has a wonderful plan for their life.

 

[ambush80]

It gets much worse. They take the all powerful God, that sweeps 100,000 men, women and children out to sea, and replace Him with a god that loves everybody and has a wonderful plan for their life.

......or a god that they can surprise by choosing to believe in.

 

[gemcgrew]

......or a god that they can surprise by choosing to believe in.

Or a Christ that judges and makes war. He will be replaced with a christ who is longing for you, yearning for you and desires to have a relationship with you.

How many funerals would we have to attend before we heard a preacher talking about the eternal suffering of the one just departed?

 

[JB0704]

Personally, I disagree with you fellas. The concept of free will addresses all of this.

Gemcgrew, why does God have to be what you say he is in order to be God?

Atlas, I am sure we can come up with other alternatives than the one you presented....God created freedom, perhaps?????

When I read the NT, I do not see a Jesus who is eager to make war on humanity.

 

[gemcgrew]

Personally, I disagree with you fellas. The concept of free will addresses all of this.

Of coarse it does. It makes things much more pleasant. It gives us a say-so in the matter.

Gemcgrew, why does God have to be what you say he is in order to be God?

He doesn't.

When I read the NT, I do not see a Jesus who is eager to make war on humanity.

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (Rev. 19:11-16)

 

[JB0704]

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (Rev. 19:11-16)

You and I might see that book a bit differently. Personally, I think the snapshot of the character is in John, but, we all have our own take on things.....

 

[atlashunter]

JB what does free will have to do with a child killed by disease or famine or natural disaster?

 

[JB0704]

JB what does free will have to do with a child killed by disease or famine or natural disaster?

Not much. But it's existence indicates God is not as interventionist as some would like us to believe. If God directs every action, then we are not free. We are either free, or we are robots, I see very little middle ground available. If we are free, then we have consequences of actions (disease and famine are often spread as a result of poor management of resources). If we are robots, then God is killing folks with those things you mentioned.

 

[bullethead]

How is it wrong for the Creator of the universe to do as He pleases with His creation? Would we, the created, have right to question? Or just be.

Well again, there really is absolutely nothing that proves such a creator exists. IF.....such an entity was well known and made regular appearances I could marvel in it greatness and accept many different things that I do now.

When someone does not have any hard facts to prove a being exists, let alone created the universe, let alone created all creation, everything else is just a magical fairy tale of hope.

 

[atlashunter]

Not much. But it's existence indicates God is not as interventionist as some would like us to believe. If God directs every action, then we are not free. We are either free, or we are robots, I see very little middle ground available. If we are free, then we have consequences of actions (disease and famine are often spread as a result of poor management of resources). If we are robots, then God is killing folks with those things you mentioned.

Not the answer I thought I would get. I thought you would go with the fallen world due to Adam eating the fruit.

If you want to claim the deist God that doesn't intervene then you're talking about a different God from the bible. The biblical God is constantly intervening in the world and Christians certainly believe in an interventionist God. Again, Harris specifically addresses this.

If the free will argument is that God wants people to be able to exercise their free will then to any extent that he intervenes in the world does it not make sense that he would intervene on behalf of children who will die before the age of 5 so that they have that opportunity? A 3 year old that is swept away by a tsunami will never get to exercise their free will. You suggest that disease and famine are often the fault of man. They are often not man's fault too. If you want to credit a man who jumps off a cliff as receiving the consequences of his free will that makes sense and could be compatible with a just God. But this idea that some should suffer and have their free will violated by others would be neither moral or just if it were true. It would be like you watching a rape occur, having the power to stop it at absolutely no personal risk to yourself, and choosing to do nothing because you don't want to interfere with the free will of the rapist. So the free will position doesn't help much in addressing this problem except for cases where the victim is a victim of their own free will. In most of the cases which Sam is speaking of it is completely irrelevant.

 

[gemcgrew]

Well again, there really is absolutely nothing that proves such a creator exists.

I understand. My comment was directed at your previous state of unbelief. "One of the big factors for me was when I mustered up the courage to hold my "do no wrong" God accountable for the wrongs." Not your current state of unbelief.

When someone does not have any hard facts to prove a being exists, let alone created the universe, let alone created all creation, everything else is just a magical fairy tale of hope.

And the criteria of proof you require may or may not be provided during your life. It does not appear that you are asking too much.

 

[bullethead]

I understand. My comment was directed at your previous state of unbelief. "One of the big factors for me was when I mustered up the courage to hold my "do no wrong" God accountable for the wrongs." Not your current state of unbelief.

And the criteria of proof you require may or may not be provided during your life. It does not appear that you are asking too much.

10-4
Once I had that initial courage to think outside the box and ask the first question, the rest became easier and easier because the answers, or lack of answers made much more sense.

 

[atlashunter]

bump for semperfidawg

 

[Robert Tuck]

Atlas,

Sam Harris brings up a very traditional objection for belief in God, the problem of evil; but does so eloquently. Speaking with all emotional reactions aside, I don’t believe this objection is capable of demonstrating that God does not exist or that he is impudent. To say it is impossible or improbable for God to have morally sufficient reasons for suffering is quite the claim. It’s a claim that, in my humble opinion, can only use the emotional reaction to suffering to persuade. Intellectually, no one can state as fact “God has no morally sufficient reason to allow suffering”. Standing on the ground watching tracks switch and redirect trains, one can hardly see the big picture. But standing in front of the vast circuit board with lights showing all the trains racing in different directions, one could see the bigger picture more clearly. In the case of human history, we have a vast inconceivable array of events interconnected with one another. It seems presumptuous to claim emphatically that suffering will not be redeemed in some way.

This is the hope and belief of the Christian; that in the end even after death, justice will be done. On the other hand, without God, it’s just tough luck. Without the existence of God, there is only suffering, death, and then oblivion for these children.
Here’s a short 4 minute video response to the problem of evil from my favorite philosopher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ps36TV_vI&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EcdXA1dVgb7-C0lXtp6LFp4&index=2

In case you’re interested, he debated Sam Harris at the University of Notre Dame back in 2011.

 

[bullethead]

Atlas,

Sam Harris brings up a very traditional objection for belief in God, the problem of evil; but does so eloquently. Speaking with all emotional reactions aside, I don’t believe this objection is capable of demonstrating that God does not exist or that he is impudent. To say it is impossible or improbable for God to have morally sufficient reasons for suffering is quite the claim. It’s a claim that, in my humble opinion, can only use the emotional reaction to suffering to persuade. Intellectually, no one can state as fact “God has no morally sufficient reason to allow suffering”. Standing on the ground watching tracks switch and redirect trains, one can hardly see the big picture. But standing in front of the vast circuit board with lights showing all the trains racing in different directions, one could see the bigger picture more clearly. In the case of human history, we have a vast inconceivable array of events interconnected with one another. It seems presumptuous to claim emphatically that suffering will not be redeemed in some way.

This is the hope and belief of the Christian; that in the end even after death, justice will be done. On the other hand, without God, it’s just tough luck. Without the existence of God, there is only suffering, death, and then oblivion for these children.
Here’s a short 4 minute video response to the problem of evil from my favorite philosopher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ps36TV_vI&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EcdXA1dVgb7-C0lXtp6LFp4&index=2

In case you’re interested, he debated Sam Harris at the University of Notre Dame back in 2011.

Craig makes a lot of improbable assertions himself doesn't he?
Like: every action has a ripple effect and could effect something 300 years in the future and possibly in another country. Yet no mention or example of how he can back that up.
I saw the 2011 debate. It was very one sided(especially for an audience at a Catholic University) and it was not in favor of Dr. Craig.

 

[stringmusic]

Craig makes a lot of improbable assertions himself doesn't he?
Like: every action has a ripple effect and could effect something 300 years in the future and possibly in another country. Yet no mention or example of how he can back that up.

That's not an assertion, it's a rational opinion. Note the key words "could" and "possibly".

And I don't think Dr. Craig would have much of a problem giving some examples of how this could happen, he didn't because that was not the point of the discussion.

The point was "we don't know" if things have ripple effects that do not manifest themselves until many years later, and that is a problem for the atheist making the assertion that God is not real based on the fact that pain and suffering happen.

 

[swampstalker24]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

 

[stringmusic]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

No

Is he able, but not willing?

It's not in His will.

Is he both able and willing?

He is able, but it's not in His will.

Then whence cometh evil?

Because humans are evil.

Is he neither able nor willing?

He is able, but it's not in His will.

This has been posted in here many times, while on the surface it looks like a pursuasive argument, but once one starts to dig a little deeper into it there's not much there. All the scenario's are not given, the writer simply takes biased questions that support the agenda of writing it in the first place.

 

[swampstalker24]

No

It's not in His will.

He is able, but it's not in His will.

Because humans are evil.

He is able, but it's not in His will.

This has been posted in here many times, while on the surface it looks like a pursuasive argument, but once one starts to dig a little deeper into it there's not much there. All the scenario's are not given, the writer simply takes biased questions that support the agenda of writing it in the first place.

So, by your own argument, God is able, but he choses not to because it's not in his will. Therefore his will is for people to suffer and he is malevolent. I think the simplicity of the argument is what makes it so true, there is no need to dig deeper.