Is it?

[Bri]

Yea, we have correct god's mistakes.

It is far from clear that if God exists, diseases were necessarily a mistake.

See here's the deal. You are going to suffer unimaginable pain and horror and then your going to die a slow excruciating, humiliating death. But hey, everybody else benefits.
It must suck to be that guy.

Yup, it would certainly suck for that guy.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

But, doesn't that strike you as odd? IF our rule is supposed to be the golden rule, and if that rule originates in God, then why is God a utilitarian? That just seems odd to me.

Why does that strike you as odd?

Yes, I know your point. But there are instances in which no one can intervene in human suffering. We know this because we find their bodies later. Take hikers who go off on their own, fall, break a leg and die a few days later. Autopsy shows that death was not immediate. But no intervention. Of course you can always say -- they made the trip of their own free choice. So choose any large scale pandemic - say the Black Death, where peole died in agony, where entire towns were wiped from the map. No one could intervene because no one was left when the last two people died. Such suffering is not a true exception. It is rather mundane.

Mundane, and perhaps necessary in order for us to have free will to choose right despite temptation to do wrong.

That makes no sense for the 14th century BCE. Do you honestly want to argue that the long history of human suffering serves the purpose of 21st century medical research? That's why God made it happen?

I didn't say that was the reason -- I said it was a possible reason. Without being all-knowing I wouldn't know every possible good that might come out of a seemingly bad situation. That doesn't mean that the worst scenario you can come up with wasn't for the greater good though. I'm not sure how you can demonstrate otherwise.

Also, I feel compelled to say again that I'm not a Christian so I don't necessarily believe these arguments. But the Problem of Evil doesn't seem to disprove the existence of an "omni-whatever" God.

Because we find their bodies after the fact and can reconstruct what most likely occurred.

We always find their body after the fact? You said that God "sets up the conditions for soul building but never intevenes [sic] even if no soul building could proceed in a particular instance." How would you know if there was any opportunity for soul building, and how do you know God NEVER intervenes if there isn't?

The conclusion of "there is no way for us to kow whether it lead to a greater good or not" is where I was heading and how this turns back to the OP. If we can truly not know how this fits together, then I maintain that we cannot use evidence to disprove God or any conception of God. The argument eliminates the possibility of evidence being used either for or against God. And this raises the issue of relevancy.

You'll have to explain this further. I don't understand how our not being all-knowing would preclude evidence of God. Specifically, if God is all-powerful, he can certainly provide us evidence of his existence (if nothing else he could configure our brains in such a way that we would all know that he exists). I'm also not sure how your assertion that no evidence is possible for the existence or nonexistence of God relates to the OP, but it is possible that I'm not understanding the OP.

I don't pretend for a second that this is a new argument. I wanted only to hear your opinion on where the argument leads. It seems to me that we reach the same conclusion -- correct me if I am wrong -- that we end up stuck with some form of fideism. But that essentially means that the argument is successful because it begins with a premise about God - that he is omni-everything. And it seems to end with -- well we can't tell. So, it seems to me that the original premise -- God is all good, all powerful, etc. cannot be used as a starting point. We are left with "well we don't know for sure".

I may be in agreement with you. I don't think that we can know for certain whether or not God exists unless God exists and makes himself known. Ironically, if God doesn't exist, I'm afraid we may never know it! In that regard, until such time as God chooses to make himself known to us, belief in God will always be a belief based on faith rather than actual fact. Yes, we are left with "we don't know for sure," and I think that most Christians would agree with that since most Christians readily admit that their beliefs are based on faith.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why does that strike you as odd?

Well, if God is the author of the good and he is all-good, it would seem to follow that he would be driven not from consequences but from the nature of goodness itself. I thought that was one of the definitions of God (as all-good). It seems odd to me that Christians find themselves painted into a corner in which God is a utilitarian and that they don't examine that issue more fully. Is that God really all-good? He doesn't seem so to me.

I didn't say that was the reason -- I said it was a possible reason. Without being all-knowing I wouldn't know every possible good that might come out of a seemingly bad situation. That doesn't mean that the worst scenario you can come up with wasn't for the greater good though. I'm not sure how you can demonstrate otherwise.

Also, I feel compelled to say again that I'm not a Christian so I don't necessarily believe these arguments. But the Problem of Evil doesn't seem to disprove the existence of an "omni-whatever" God.

No, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I could demonstrate otherwise. I was trying to point out the fact that if we really take evil seriously and if the way that we define evil is the same way that God defines evil, then the "greater good" argument seems to have some consequences that a Christian doesn't necessarily want to see.

I know you are not a Christian, don't worry. I am not trying to put you on the spot. I just wanted to pick your brain because I respect your opinion and your way of arguing. I wanted you to help me think through the issue.

We always find their body after the fact? You said that God "sets up the conditions for soul building but never intevenes [sic] even if no soul building could proceed in a particular instance." How would you know if there was any opportunity for soul building, and how do you know God NEVER intervenes if there isn't?

But that doesn't matter. We only need show one instance where there was no chance for soul building to occur from our perspectiveto force the issue into the "we can't really know what God is up to" arena. Once we are in that arena it means that we can't use the evidence before our eyes -- the evil that we see to answer any questions about God. But it should follow, then, that we can't use the evidence before our eyes to argue for the existence of God either. It should mean that our original proposition "God is all good" is in doubt. It cannot be disproved, but it also cannot be proved, so it rests as a bare proposition. Barring some unforeseen revelation I think the argument seems to lessen any proposals that we can make about God. If we cannot test those propositions in the real world because God is simply beyond our grip, then we cannot be sure of such propositions.

The proposistion that God is all-good and all-powerful seems pretty shaky because we have been forced into the corner of admitting that we don't really know what God is up to. If we can't use the evidence before our eyes to support that proposition, it seems to me that we are just whistling in the dark about it.

You'll have to explain this further. I don't understand how our not being all-knowing would preclude evidence of God. Specifically, if God is all-powerful, he can certainly provide us evidence of his existence (if nothing else he could configure our brains in such a way that we would all know that he exists). I'm also not sure how your assertion that no evidence is possible for the existence or nonexistence of God relates to the OP, but it is possible that I'm not understanding the OP.

It doesn't preclude all potential evidence of God. That is not what I meant at all. But if we cannot use the evidence that we see to judge whether God is good or evil, then the proposition that God is all good is just a proposition. It seems that we can't say anything about it. So, it seems that proposition loses relevance.

The way it relates back to the opening post is that we cannot tell the difference between "God does the good because it is good" and "what God does is good because the good is what God does". We have lost all ability to judge between those propositions. There is no logical way to distinguish the two (that I know) and we are preculded from using the evidence of our eyes.

Now, if God were to reveal himself to us and explain it all, then that would be an entirely different ballgame. I think John Hick said something about this with his idea of eschatological evidence/revelation. Basically all will be revealed at the end times. But for us to believe in that requires that we bet on one particular outcome without any clear evidence for that outcome.

I may be in agreement with you. I don't think that we can know for certain whether or not God exists unless God exists and makes himself known. Ironically, if God doesn't exist, I'm afraid we may never know it! In that regard, until such time as God chooses to make himself known to us, belief in God will always be a belief based on faith rather than actual fact. Yes, we are left with "we don't know for sure," and I think that most Christians would agree with that since most Christians readily admit that their beliefs are based on faith.

-Bri

Yeah, I think that is where it all ends. It seems kind of funny that 2000 years of speculation ends up with "we don't know" or "God is so Other that you can't possibly comprehend Him". It makes me wonder what relevance such a God could possibly have for our lives.

 

[JetLeg]

I think I see where you're coming from now, JetLag. I may have misunderstood the OP before.

If God is all-powerful, he could certainly convince me of his existence (otherwise he wouldn't be all-powerful). Short of that, if he were to appear before the world and performed miracles under controlled conditions that everyone could plainly see with their own eyes, I imagine that I would (eventually) be convinced.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the OP though.

It is fairly clear in the stories written in the Bible that Abraham had special knowledge of God, and therefore was acting for God. As written, it was reasonable for Abraham to assume that the outcome would be for the greater good, and it was therefore moral for him to do as God asked. The responsibility of the consequences would be God's, knowing that Abraham would obey.

If you're asking whether a Christian would believe that everything God asked Abraham to do would be moral for them to do on their own, it's possible that some Christian might believe that. Logically it wouldn't make sense unless they had special knowledge of God as Abraham does in the Bible, and God specifically asked them to do it. I don't know of any Christians who believe that today it is possible for someone to have the same knowledge of God that Abraham is described in the Bible as having.

-Bri

With regards to the OP, it was answered pretty well by seismosaurus.

As to the evidence - can you give me example of what would convince you? When skeptics demand evidence for an immaterial god, what do they mean, what type of evidence?

If no evidence is possible in principle, I still think one can think that there is 1 immaterial god, or 5, and this point of view is exactly the same as saying that there are 0 immmaterial gods.

 

[Bri]

Well, if God is the author of the good and he is all-good, it would seem to follow that he would be driven not from consequences but from the nature of goodness itself. I thought that was one of the definitions of God (as all-good). It seems odd to me that Christians find themselves painted into a corner in which God is a utilitarian and that they don't examine that issue more fully. Is that God really all-good? He doesn't seem so to me.

I don't think God being utilitarian is necessarily antithetical to Christian belief, nor does it mean that God wants us to be utilitarian. I always assumed that to a Christian "all-good" meant that God would be compelled to maximize good rather than eliminate all evil, particularly if minimizing evil would essentially turn us into purposeless robots. But maximizing good is something that human beings would be fairly poor at given that we cannot know the consequences of our actions in that regard.

It seems compatible with Christian belief that the ultimate "good" requires evil. If the ultimate good is for us to choose to do good despite the temptation to do evil, then the existence of evil is necessary to achieve the ultimate good. I suppose you could argue that God must be utilitarian if the ultimate good requires individuals to suffer, to toil, to overcome obstacles in order to achieve it. But it is not utilitarian in that we all have to suffer, to toil, and to overcome obstacles (some more than others, of course) to achieve the greater good for everyone. But the alternative might be worse than the suffering -- it might mean that we lack purpose altogether. So is it utilitarian if everyone suffers but everyone benefits?

No, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I could demonstrate otherwise. I was trying to point out the fact that if we really take evil seriously and if the way that we define evil is the same way that God defines evil, then the "greater good" argument seems to have some consequences that a Christian doesn't necessarily want to see.

I'm not sure why the above (even if you consider it utilitarian, which I'm not certain I agree with) is in any way antithetical to Christian belief. Even if God is utilitarian (perhaps necessarily so due to his "omni-whatever" nature) that does not necessarily mean that we are supposed to be (given that we are not "omni-whatever" in nature).

I know you are not a Christian, don't worry. I am not trying to put you on the spot. I just wanted to pick your brain because I respect your opinion and your way of arguing. I wanted you to help me think through the issue.

Oh, not a problem, and I didn't feel put on the spot. I have been in similar discussions in other threads that have turned into ad hom attacks because people misunderstood my position, so I just wanted to be clear. I'm not saying that Christians are right about God -- I'm just saying that they could possibly be.

But that doesn't matter. We only need show one instance where there was no chance for soul building to occur from our perspectiveto force the issue into the "we can't really know what God is up to" arena.

Well, I think we're squarely in that arena. I don't think any Christian claims to know precisely what God is up to, particularly given the fact that we aren't all-knowing ourselves. We can only speculate as to what God might be up to given certain assumptions about God (that he exists, that he is all-powerful, that he is good, etc).

Once we are in that arena it means that we can't use the evidence before our eyes -- the evil that we see to answer any questions about God. But it should follow, then, that we can't use the evidence before our eyes to argue for the existence of God either.

I agree (and have said before) that there is little or no evidence that God exists. That is not to say that God himself (assuming he exists) could not provide such evidence, but certainly if he has reason for us to not know for certain of his existence then we won't know for certain of his existence.

It should mean that our original proposition "God is all good" is in doubt. It cannot be disproved, but it also cannot be proved, so it rests as a bare proposition.

I doubt there are a lot of Christians who would disagree with that. Christianity is, after all, based on faith. Yes, Christians accept the premise that God exists and is good based on faith, and most don't claim that they base the belief on fact.

Barring some unforeseen revelation I think the argument seems to lessen any proposals that we can make about God. If we cannot test those propositions in the real world because God is simply beyond our grip, then we cannot be sure of such propositions.

I agree. We can't be sure about such propositions. Particularly so if God is all-powerful and doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence.

The proposistion that God is all-good and all-powerful seems pretty shaky because we have been forced into the corner of admitting that we don't really know what God is up to. If we can't use the evidence before our eyes to support that proposition, it seems to me that we are just whistling in the dark about it.

Yes, that's one way to look at it.

It doesn't preclude all potential evidence of God. That is not what I meant at all. But if we cannot use the evidence that we see to judge whether God is good or evil, then the proposition that God is all good is just a proposition. It seems that we can't say anything about it. So, it seems that proposition loses relevance.

I don't know, really. We all hold beliefs that are not based on compelling evidence -- we usually call them opinions. If you hold that one cannot have an opinion without solid evidence, then one cannot assert that black licorice tastes better than red. I think it all boils down to the fact that the belief that God exists is simply an opinion rather than fact. But I also think that's what Christians mean when they say that their beliefs are based on faith.

Yeah, I think that is where it all ends. It seems kind of funny that 2000 years of speculation ends up with "we don't know" or "God is so Other that you can't possibly comprehend Him".

If the ultimate good is for us to be able to freely choose to do good despite the temptation to do evil, then it would make sense that God doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists. If we knew that he exists, it would be like holding a gun to our heads and the choice to do good would essentially be made for us.

It makes me wonder what relevance such a God could possibly have for our lives.

Oddly, even if God doesn't exist, he (or maybe more precisely the concept of him) certainly has relevance in our lives, even for those of us who aren't Christian. Even without any solid evidence whatsoever, he has managed to be relevant.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

As to the evidence - can you give me example of what would convince you? When skeptics demand evidence for an immaterial god, what do they mean, what type of evidence?

I believe I answered you in the post which you quoted:

If God is all-powerful, he could certainly convince me of his existence (otherwise he wouldn't be all-powerful). Short of that, if he were to appear before the world and performed miracles under controlled conditions that everyone could plainly see with their own eyes, I imagine that I would (eventually) be convinced.​

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

I believe I answered you in the post which you quoted:

If God is all-powerful, he could certainly convince me of his existence (otherwise he wouldn't be all-powerful). Short of that, if he were to appear before the world and performed miracles under controlled conditions that everyone could plainly see with their own eyes, I imagine that I would (eventually) be convinced.​

-Bri

I meant a specific example. If god is immaterial, he cannot literally appear to the world. Are you thinking of a giant eye appearing in the sky, or something like that?

 

[slingblade]

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof, are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head.

The entire excerpt is well worth reading and cogitating.

 

[uruk]

The same place as "too many cooks spoil the broth" or "never judge a book by its cover" I would imagine. As far as I know it's a saying, not a quote from the Bible. It's a good one though, and it's almost always true given that we cannot fully predict the consequences of our actions.

Yep it just a platitude. but if you lock yourself into a line of thinking you have to follow it through othwerwise you are acting hypocritcaly.
Which of course humans do quite a bit.

Yes, I agree. The act isn't "murder" -- the act is the taking of a human life. If it's not justified, it's called "murder." But the act of taking a human life is not immoral (i.e. murder) all by itself -- it is only murder under a given set of circumstances in which it isn't justified.

It is a question of semantics

I disagree. To the contrary, not stealing would be immoral if stealing was the only way to save a human life. True, stealing would be "bad" for the person being stolen from, but the overall act would be moral for the person doing the stealing. I do see the point you're making, and it may only be semantics, but you have to agree that the moral choice in this case would be to steal in order to save the life and the immoral choice would be to not steal and allow someone to die.

Then again it would depend on whose life is being saved. If you go by the overall big picture.

According to your definition above, yes. According to mine, good and evil are probably two ends of a continuum. In other words, an act falls somewhere between "absolute good" and "absolute evil" and is considered a "moral" act if it is as far to the good side as forseeably possible given the circumstances.

Well that's the problem with a bigger picture picture. Most of do not have the bigger picture. And we are most certainly excluded from see ing Gods bigger picture. We can only opperate by what we can see at any givin moment.

Not if he allows us to have free will. If we have free will, we are largely responsible for the circumstances we are in (particularly those aspects of our circumstances that were within our control).

Theres a problem with free will and an omnicient god. One tends to cancell out the other. If we are to have true free will god cannot know what our decision will be untill we make them. (although I'm sure he could make damnd good guesses) If god knows what our decisions will be in advanced than our will is not truely free from his perspective. Which would mean that all actions and consequences are known to him.

I believe I understand your point. When you talk of God killing someone, you're actually talking about human death and suffering as the result of a natural disaster or a circumstance that is beyond human control (since we don't see any obvious evidence of smiting by God these days), right? Your argument is that surely God could create a world in which there is no death and no suffering that is beyond our control. But that world might very well defeat the purpose of our having free will. If there is no suffering, then there is no incentive to do wrong and it would be easy for everyone to do right. But it's possible that the greater good is achieved by our having the opportunity to exercise our free will to choose to do right in the face of temptation to do wrong.

Well two things here; suffering from natural disasters has nothing to do with free will. Other than chosing to live in an area that you know is prone to disasters.. but if you have no inkling then...well you know.
Second, if god is omnicient then there is no free will (from his perspective)

Example, please. Where did this idea come from? Presumably, if God kills someone it is for a greater purpose -- not for the sole purpose of killing them for no reason whatsoever.

If god kills someone for the reason of allowing another person to make a choice. If god is omnicient then god already knows what choice the other person is going to make in advance. So why kill the guy at all?

For God, yes the ends may very well justify the means, given that he knows exactly what the ends will be. For human beings who cannot know beforehand exactly what the consequences of our actions will be, the ends don't always justify the means.

But the saying implies that it does not matter what the outcome is the ends do not justify the means. Period. Call me an absolutists (i'm not really, but i'm just playing devils advocate here)

-Bri[/QUOTE]

 

[Beerina]

For God, yes the ends may very well justify the means, given that he knows exactly what the ends will be.

Perhaps. But I find it hard to believe there is some greater end that can only be achieved via the world we have about us now. There are no more pleasant paths? It requires millions of starving people? Billions of torture victims? A 9 year old girl being raped, then wrapped in plastic and given a teddy bear to hold while she is buried alive?

I think not.

 

[Gurdur]

...There are no more pleasant paths? It requires millions of starving people? ....

Sounds just like libertarianism, doesn't it? Another reason to dislike God; the resemblance to Ayn Rand. Of course, she did think she was God.

 

[JetLeg]

You have an "intellectual right" to believe anything you want. You have the right to be stupid. Just keep it to yourself, and don't try to make me believe in your fairy tales.

As for your analogy of GW Bush being Clinton's father: have your heard about David Icke? He writes books about how they're both (as are the British Royal Family) reptilian aliens. Now, he's got no evidence to back it up, but that doesn't stop him from writing this nonsense. The problem is that there are people who believe it. And if they start acting on those beliefs... Reality is a good thing. You should check it out sometime.

I am trying to understand.

I think that each person's point of view is unique. So, if you disagree with a person's point of view, you have to show that it is false. If there is no way to show it is false, then yours is not better than his.

Agree so far?

 

[jimlintott]

Let's distinguish between a political right to a point of view and an intellectual right to a point of view. As far as I understand, you say that I have a political right to any point of view, that you don't want the government to imprison anyone for their thoughts. However, an intellectual right to a point of view is means that a certain point of view has any merit at all. If one would think that G.W. Bush is the father of Bill Clinton, he would have a political right to this point of view, but not an intellectual right - it would be just stupid.

Do you think I have an intellectual right to hold whatever opinions with regards to the supernatural that I want to?

Holding a 'point of view' that is contrary to well established facts is less a 'point of view' and more an act of willful ignorance. Which is a nice way of saying an act of stupidity.

A point of view on the supernatural is a point of view on nature. In nature facts are established not by points of view but by evidence. There may be differing points of view on what the evidence is suggesting but in the end the fact will be immutable. It certainly won't change to suit your point of view. Can you fly by taking a different point of view on gravity?

If you really believe in the supernatural, why call it supernatural? If it's real it's natural. If you want to prove something as real then you need evidence, not a point of view.

 

[Bri]

I meant a specific example. If god is immaterial, he cannot literally appear to the world. Are you thinking of a giant eye appearing in the sky, or something like that?

Honestly, it wouldn't much matter how God appeared physically. He could appear as Jesus or a talking goat, or just a booming voice in the sky or in my head. If he could perform miracles under controlled conditions that would eliminate the possibility of a hoax, it would be pretty strong evidence in my opinion.

Alternately, as I've said, he could just make me believe in him (being omnipotent and all) without presenting any evidence.

-Bri

 

[Reinhard]

Just a couple of thoughts I've been having:

If God sees that suffering is the only path to true goodness, then God must suffer as we do (because he is omnibenevolent, the personification of good... hopefully you get my point here). But the only way for God to truly suffer as we do would be to lack knowledge... because if he knew and could see all the outcomes of his suffering (i.e. omniscience) then he would not be experiencing true human suffering. But if he cannot experience true human suffering, then how can he be omniscient? Paradox attack!

To put it another way, God voluntarily submits to suffering because he knows it to be the path to goodness (and, as he is omnipotent, nothing can force suffering on him without his permission). But this is not real suffering at all... unless God has no free will, in which case he is not omnipotent because he cannot do as he pleases. Therefore, it is impossible for God to understand the true nature of the suffering he inflicts on others - which is apparently impossible, because he is omniscient - and therefore God could logically perform evil acts... which is impossible, because he is omnibenevolent. Aargh!

Alternatively, God does not suffer. But as he is supposedly omnibenevolent, then that means that suffering is not the path to true goodness, and that it is perfectly possible to create a world in which there is absolute goodness but no suffering (as long as God remains omnipotent). So, why did God include suffering? It can't be for the greater good, because he is the greater good, and suffering did not feature in his personality. We're back to square one... again.

Ahahaha... my brain...

 

[uruk]

Perhaps. But I find it hard to believe there is some greater end that can only be achieved via the world we have about us now. There are no more pleasant paths? It requires millions of starving people? Billions of torture victims? A 9 year old girl being raped, then wrapped in plastic and given a teddy bear to hold while she is buried alive?

I think not.

And the other problem has to do with the victims. All thier suffering may be for achievement of a bigger picture but it certainly sucks loads for them.
And that also bring into question god's attitude toward the individual. All these other guys are more important to god than this individual. And if god has a great plan then your sole purpose for existance was to be killed or suffer in some horrible fashion for the benefit (which you do not get to partake) of others.

Sucks to be that person. On the other hand, if there is an afterlife.......

 

[JetLeg]

Holding a 'point of view' that is contrary to well established facts is less a 'point of view' and more an act of willful ignorance. Which is a nice way of saying an act of stupidity.

A point of view on the supernatural is a point of view on nature. In nature facts are established not by points of view but by evidence. There may be differing points of view on what the evidence is suggesting but in the end the fact will be immutable. It certainly won't change to suit your point of view. Can you fly by taking a different point of view on gravity?

If you really believe in the supernatural, why call it supernatural? If it's real it's natural. If you want to prove something as real then you need evidence, not a point of view.

That is why I don't believe in miracles for example, because you need evidence for that. But, if we are talking immaterial, for which you cannot have evidence, then you have points of view. And if you can't contradict one, just as valid as yours.

 

[uruk]

Honestly, it wouldn't much matter how God appeared physically. He could appear as Jesus or a talking goat, or just a booming voice in the sky or in my head. If he could perform miracles under controlled conditions that would eliminate the possibility of a hoax, it would be pretty strong evidence in my opinion.

Alternately, as I've said, he could just make me believe in him (being omnipotent and all) without presenting any evidence.

-Bri

Yep. Whenever I'm asked what would it take for me to beleive that there is a god. My answer is "God would know what it would take."

 

[Bri]

Then again it would depend on whose life is being saved. If you go by the overall big picture.

How so? First of all, we as human beings cannot see the overall big picture as an all-knowing God could. Therefore, we would not be able to make judgments about whose life is worth saving and whose isn't. So in our case, stealing would be the more moral choice if it means also saving a life.

Anyway, my point stands -- it's the forseeable consequence of the action that makes it moral or immoral and not the action itself.

Well that's the problem with a bigger picture picture. Most of do not have the bigger picture. And we are most certainly excluded from see ing Gods bigger picture. We can only opperate by what we can see at any givin moment.

I totally agree. Our morality must be based on what we can see from our limited perspective. God's morality, on the other hand, would be based on what God can see (which is everything), and therefore the moral action for God might differ from the moral action for us in the same circumstance. In other words, the moral choice for God might seem immoral to us.

Theres a problem with free will and an omnicient god. One tends to cancell out the other. If we are to have true free will god cannot know what our decision will be untill we make them. (although I'm sure he could make damnd good guesses) If god knows what our decisions will be in advanced than our will is not truely free from his perspective. Which would mean that all actions and consequences are known to him.

That's a discussion for another thread (and in fact there was a really interesting thread about this topic about a year ago). The short answer is that there are several possible solutions to this problem, and it is possible for God to be all-knowing and for us to still have free will.

Well two things here; suffering from natural disasters has nothing to do with free will. Other than chosing to live in an area that you know is prone to disasters.. but if you have no inkling then...well you know.

Well, it is possible that God not only wants us to have free will, but actually wants us to be able to make choices that matter. Sure, he could set up a world in which nothing bad happens to anyone, but we all have to make a choice about whether we want to eat ambrosia or nectar for breakfast. If the greatest good were served only by our having free will, then that scenario would be the optimal one. However, it is possible that the greatest good is actually served by us making free choices to do right despite the temptation to do evil. In that case, evil is necessary. You could argue that only man-made evil would be necessary and that natural disasters would not be necessary, but one could also argue that without any suffering or toil caused by nature, there would be no reason or incentive for people to be evil to one another.

If god kills someone for the reason of allowing another person to make a choice. If god is omnicient then god already knows what choice the other person is going to make in advance. So why kill the guy at all?

There are other possible reasons for allowing natural disasters and other forms of suffering that are presumably beyond human control than to simply give another person the opportunity to make a specific choice (see above).

But the saying implies that it does not matter what the outcome is the ends do not justify the means. Period. Call me an absolutists (i'm not really, but i'm just playing devils advocate here)

Is the saying a Christian saying? Does it necessarily pertain to God? If not, it's pretty much irrelevent to this discussion.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Perhaps. But I find it hard to believe there is some greater end that can only be achieved via the world we have about us now. There are no more pleasant paths?

I don't know. Do you?

I think not.

Thinking and knowing are two different things.

-Bri