God's Villainy

[dgmort19]

Hello all, I'm a brand new addition to the Happy Atheist group, and I thought I'd start out by presenting a theory I came up with the other day. It pertains at the very least to the god of Christianity. Let me know what you guys think.

1)   God is omnipotent. Anything that can be done, he can do.
2)   God is omniscient. Anything that there is to know, he knows.
3)   When God creates a human being with free will, due to 2), he is completely aware of the human being’s ultimate fate.

God creates Joe. Joe grows up and exercises his free will to become an atheist. Joe dies and enters Hell, where he will suffer the worst punishment imaginable.

-Christian response: Joe was given the choice by God to become faithful and enter Heaven. He used his choice, instead, to lead himself to Hell. Thus, Joe is the only one responsible for his own fate, and his existence is justified by his free will.

4)   Heaven is the best thing possible for a human to achieve. It has maximum value (it is the most valuable thing).
5)   Hell is the worst thing possible for a human to achieve. It has no value (it is the least valuable thing).
6)   Free will leads either to Heaven or Hell. Thus, much like a lottery ticket, it is worth exactly what it delivers. It is either worth maximum or minimum value.

- Negation of Christian response: If Joe uses his free will to make choices that deliver him to Hell, his free will has no value.

-Christian response: Joe’s free will had potential value, as it could have led him to Heaven.

-Negation: Due to 3), God was aware that Joe’s free will was without value. Thus, Joe's existence cannot be justified by his possession of free will.

Conclusion: God created Joe with the intent that Joe would suffer the punishment of Hell. The morally upright thing to do would be to refrain from creating Joe at all. Or, due to 1), he should have been able to create a Joe who would choose to go to Heaven. Since he did not, God is evil.

[i_am_i]

Well, first you're going to have to define "evil."

[PoopShoot]

Premise 1 is false according to Judge 1:19.

[dgmort19]

Well, first you're going to have to define "evil."

I am going by the popular moral standard that it is so terribly wrong to willingly subject people to an eternity of torture, that this act makes a person, or god, evil. I understand the issue with simply citing God as qualifying for the title of "evil," but what would you call it when he is the cause of eternal torture, as outlined in my first post?

Premise 1 is false according to Judge 1:19.

You'll have to elaborate on that. Judges 1:19 says: "The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots."

If you mean that they were unable to accomplish something even though God was "with" them, you'll have to interpret what "with" means. Does it mean he was standing there with them, or simply that he approved of their actions; that their deeds were in accordance with his will?

Thanks for the replies.

[i_am_i]

Well, first you're going to have to define "evil."

I am going by the popular moral standard that it is so terribly wrong to willingly subject people to an eternity of torture, that this act makes a person, or god, evil. I understand the issue with simply citing God as qualifying for the title of "evil," but what would you call it when he is the cause of eternal torture, as outlined in my first post?

I don't know. I'm still waiting for your definition of "evil."

[Reginus]

I personally disagree with 3.

[dgmort19]

Job 42:2: "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted."

Matthew 19:26: "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[dgmort19]

I personally disagree with 3.

Then you necessarily disagree with 2, because if he is not aware of a human being's ultimate fate, then he is not omniscient.

[dgmort19]

Well, first you're going to have to define "evil."

I am going by the popular moral standard that it is so terribly wrong to willingly subject people to an eternity of torture, that this act makes a person, or god, evil. I understand the issue with simply citing God as qualifying for the title of "evil," but what would you call it when he is the cause of eternal torture, as outlined in my first post?

I don't know. I'm still waiting for your definition of "evil."

This is highly subjective. My definition of "evil" may be the same as yours, or it may not. It is difficult to define comprehensively, but there is often an understanding of evil action when it is witnessed. We view murder as evil, we view rape as evil, etc. I view what the Bible's God does as evil.

Moreover, a Christian does have a definition of evil, and God's action, in this case, qualifies.

[joeactor]

... and what if "Evil" is defined as anything done against God's will?

Then God would be incapable of Evil.

Yes?

And denial of God's will would be the ultimate Evil.

Just playing Devil's advocate,
JoeActor

[Reginus]

I personally disagree with 3.

Then you necessarily disagree with 2, because if he is not aware of a human being's ultimate fate, then he is not omniscient.

Unless the fate of a human is not always something that there is to know, but God knows the future partially as a set of possibilities.
If you know everything there is to know about cars, then do you know the wheelbase of a 2017 Ford Focus?

In any case, it comes down to an argument of definition.  My point is that I don't believe that God entirely knows the future, especially the fate of humans.

[PoopShoot]

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out [the inhabitants of] the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

There is a reason for the discrepancy: the passage implies that the victory was due to god's intervention.

[dgmort19]

... and what if "Evil" is defined as anything done against God's will?

Then God would be incapable of Evil.

Yes?

And denial of God's will would be the ultimate Evil.

Just playing Devil's advocate,
JoeActor

...yes, I suppose you're right about that. If the alleged inventor of morals defines "evil" as that which goes against his will, then he cannot commit evil. However, it should be highly suspicious that God does not adhere to his own standards.

"Don't hurt one another...but it's cool if I do it."

[i_am_i]

Well, first you're going to have to define "evil."

I am going by the popular moral standard that it is so terribly wrong to willingly subject people to an eternity of torture, that this act makes a person, or god, evil. I understand the issue with simply citing God as qualifying for the title of "evil," but what would you call it when he is the cause of eternal torture, as outlined in my first post?

I don't know. I'm still waiting for your definition of "evil."

This is highly subjective. My definition of "evil" may be the same as yours, or it may not. It is difficult to define comprehensively, but there is often an understanding of evil action when it is witnessed. We view murder as evil, we view rape as evil, etc. I view what the Bible's God does as evil.

Moreover, a Christian does have a definition of evil, and God's action, in this case, qualifies.

Well, then let's use the old bog-standard on-line dictionary definition:

1. a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2. a archaic : inferior b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor> c : disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3. a : causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : unlucky

I think the first definition best describes what you're saying: that God is morally reprehensible and wicked. Would you agree?

[dgmort19]

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out [the inhabitants of] the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

There is a reason for the discrepancy: the passage implies that the victory was due to god's intervention.

It looks like we're referencing the same passage from separate translations. If your translation is correct, then he is not omnipotent. But doesn't it seem silly that God could create the damn universe, generate a worldwide flood, blow Sodom and Gomorrah to smithereens, call down plagues, but not overcome a valley of chariot riders? I could do it myself with a little help from an explosives expert.


Plus, as I posted previously, it states pretty clearly that he can do anything, so your translation seems out of sync with the rest of the Bible.