God's Villainy

[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.

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?

Yes, I would agree. I thought you were going for the argument that evil can't be defined.

[i_am_i]

Okay. So here's how I see it: if you can prove that God is evil then you've actually proved that God Exists! And That He's Evil!

In which case we're all fucked no matter what we do or do not believe.

Welcome to the forum, dgmort!

[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.

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.

It's an interesting analogy, but I can't see that it's totally accurate. A human who knows everything there is to know about cars will understand exactly that which exists to know, based on his human capacity for knowledge (which doesn't transcend the present, unlike what Miss Cleo would have you believe).

If God is truly omniscient, that is a term that transcends time. All knowledge. Period.

[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.

It looks like we're referencing the same passage from separate translations.

That's the discrepancy to which I was referring.

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.

Of course it seems silly, but then it also seems silly that the reator of the universe would be afraid of an army that planned to march up to him on an adobe ziggurat as well.

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.

It also clearly states that there are things he cannot do.  The bible is out of synch with itself.

[dgmort19]

Okay. So here's how I see it: if you can prove that God is evil then you've actually proved that God Exists! And That He's Evil!

In which case we're all fucked no matter what we do or do not believe.

Welcome to the forum, dgmort!

LOL! Okay, that makes sense. The only way he can be evil is if he does these things. And if he does these things, that means he is real. I guess I should say that, if God did exist, he would be evil. I am an atheist, so that's really what I believed in the first place.

[PoopShoot]

If God is truly omniscient, that is a term that transcends time. All knowledge. Period.

This still assumes that the future is fixed.  If the future is mutable, a prerequisite for free will to begin with, then god's omniscience wouldn't be a matter of him knowing the future so much as knowing all possible futures.

[dgmort19]

It also clearly states that there are things he cannot do.  The bible is out of synch with itself.

Good point. I guess my theory is based more on what Christians inform me about God, which is that he's all powerful. No discrepancies there. In fact, my translation is newer than yours, so it looks like it was altered to fit popular dogma. That's comforting...

[dgmort19]

If God is truly omniscient, that is a term that transcends time. All knowledge. Period.

This still assumes that the future is fixed.  If the future is mutable, a prerequisite for free will to begin with, then god's omniscience wouldn't be a matter of him knowing the future so much as knowing all possible futures.

But the future can only be fixed. Ultimately, there will be only a single outcome. Possibilities may exist in the trillions, but only one will become the reality. If he does not know that ultimate outcome, then he would not be omniscient, which makes him less evil and more irresponsible for potentially allowing people to enter Hell.

The Bible seems to insist that God knows all things, so based on that, I have to assume that he would know the ultimate outcome.

[PoopShoot]

In fact, my translation is newer than yours, so it looks like it was altered to fit popular dogma. That's comforting...

Your translation matches the wording for the NKJV.  If that is the version you're using, then you are correct.  That said, the KJV was translated from a latin text that was translated from a greek text whose old testament was translated from hebrew texts.  I would say that newer translations that are taken from original texts are probably more accurate than a copy of a copy of a copy.  That said, the implication of EVERY translation is that god gave them the power to do it, but his power failed when they encountered iron chariots.

[dgmort19]

Damn those chariots.

[PoopShoot]

But the future can only be fixed. Ultimately, there will be only a single outcome.

This is looking at the future after it has become the past.

Possibilities may exist in the trillions, but only one will become the reality.

But that outcome isn't necessarily determined before the choices are made that generate that outcome.  Indeed, were it any other way, there would be no free will as you are guaranteed to make a particular choice.

If he does not know that ultimate outcome, then he would not be omniscient, which makes him less evil and more irresponsible for potentially allowing people to enter Hell.

Unless that outcome isn't a guarantee, as inferred by the idea of free will.

The Bible seems to insist that God knows all things, so based on that, I have to assume that he would know the ultimate outcome.

IF you assume that the outcome is guaranteed beforehand, sure.  IF you do, however, then you have to drop all premises that involve free will.

[dgmort19]

This is looking at the future after it has become the past.

Isn't that essentially what God does?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. As I see it, an ultimate outcome necessitates the concept of a fixed path, but I don't see how it precludes free will. The fixed path to your ultimate outcome is still the result of your choice. Though you may be guaranteed to make said choice, it wasn't anyone's decision but your own.

[PoopShoot]

It's not a choice if you don't have the choice not to make it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Epicurus dealt with this issue very tersely:

[dgmort19]

It's not a choice if you don't have the choice not to make it.

But if I offer to leap into a pool of alligators, there are two consequences.

1: I'll leap in and possibly die
2: I won't leap in at all

Ultimately, we can look back and say, "dgmort decided not to leap in after all." Does that alter the fact that I chose not to do it? I don't think so. I chose to bind myself to the timeline that would, in retrospect, be the only thing that could have happened. When you "choose" an option, it means that you're choosing to abide by the timeline that was outlined for you.

If an evil dictator offers me the option of following his orders or killing me, and I, being evil in this scenario, would have chosen to follow his orders even without a death threat, then I made a choice despite the fact that the option was forced.

Likewise, when an ultimate fate forces our options, it doesn't mean that we didn't willingly choose those options to begin with. Does that make sense?