Craig and Hitchens. A moral God?

[Koldo]

Well, I did say that Craig is a bit shallow. The issue of evil is a bit easier for me to understand since I'm a theistic evolutionist who doesn't take the first three chapters of Genesis literally.

If i understood what you meant by 'theistic evolutionist' correctly, then you undermine omnipotence to solve the problem of evil.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If i understood what you meant by 'theistic evolutionist' correctly, then you undermine omnipotence to solve the problem of evil.

Nope. It's just an understanding of the processes of creation.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yikes.
I didn't realize how many Atheists would be offended by that quote,
I only used it to back up my point,
That blaming God for anything or applying human attributes to Him is ridiculous.

No probs. I'm hating on the quote, not you. Us stubborn Aussies need to stick together to some degree.

Rightio, I won't use it again.
Though I don't really see so much as to what is wrong with it,

On a personal level, I work very hard to live a moral life, despite there being no reward attached to it. Indeed if some religions are accurate, I will be damned regardless. But whatever the truth of God is, my belief or disbelief doesn't change the fact of his existence (or otherwise). Your quote suggests that I'm denying God to give myself an easier life.

1) I'd need to be intellectually dishonest with myself.
2) I'd need to ignore the fact that my disbelief and easy life would later be judged.

It feeds into some of the more lazy stereotypes of atheists as dishonest and looking for the easy path.

I cannot deny that I feel a Godless life is a somewhat 'easier' life, With no one but yourself to be accountable to.

I think you'd be surprised by how firmly l stick to what I believe is right. Belief in God would not, I hope, change my moral values nor my application of them. So how is it easier?
I spend a lot of time thinking about my philosophy on life, about my values. I can't abrogate responsibility for my actions to a book, or an authority figure.

And as I recall, The quote did not say 'all' Atheists, But some.

Some theists are small-minded bigots whose only sense of place and purpose relies on a rigid relationship with man made religion, and no understanding of spirituality.

It's true, right? Also a useless stereotype. I don't (I think) lower myself to stereotyping 'theists', even when tempting, since the logical part of my brain realises theists are ridiculously diverse. Should I accept less for atheists?

Meh, that sounds more up-myself than I was intending. Just trying to explain what I saw as the inherent crap in that quote.

 

[Koldo]

Nope. It's just an understanding of the processes of creation.

Let me explain:

Omnipotence means unlimited power. An individual with unlimited power is able to actualize any state of affairs. If God needs go through some means, such as evolution, to reach an end, a perfect world ( for example ), then he is not omnipotent.

Or, and that is what i mean by undermining omnipotence: you consider omnipotence to be something less than unlimited power.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Let me explain:

Omnipotence means unlimited power. An individual with unlimited power is able to actualize any state of affairs. If God needs go through some means, such as evolution, to reach an end, a perfect world ( for example ), then he is not omnipotent.

Or, and that is what i mean by undermining omnipotence: you consider omnipotence to be something less than unlimited power.

No, it's just the process that God has chosen to realize His plan for creation. It's not saying that He "has" to do this or that, it's just that that's how He saw fit to go about it. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.

 

[cottage]

Suffering is a necessary component because God created the universe as evolving and unfolding towards a future perfection. The state of the universe is of possible progress. The consciousness of humanity is also in a state of evolution. Eventually, we should reach a state of compassion and use technologies to be able to wipe out many forms of suffering.

But with respect you haven't addressed what I said. Suffering isn't necessary unless the world has to be the way it is, and since an omnipotent God cannot be under any compunction to create the world he certainly can't lie under any necessity to create evil in the world. And even if we eventually reach a state of compassion the contradiction still stands unassailed, for not even God can undo what is done, re-write history or make the past non-exisent.

 

[Thana]

Let me explain:

Omnipotence means unlimited power. An individual with unlimited power is able to actualize any state of affairs. If God needs go through some means, such as evolution, to reach an end, a perfect world ( for example ), then he is not omnipotent.

Or, and that is what i mean by undermining omnipotence: you consider omnipotence to be something less than unlimited power.

If you have unlimited power, Yes you can wish anything into existence.
Or you could use one thing to get to another.
Either way, It doesn't demean omnipotence.

If God wanted a candy bar, He could just have a candy bar.
Or he could turn himself into a human, Come down to earth and buy a candy bar from a store.

Both are demonstrations of omnipotence.

 

[Koldo]

No, it's just the process that God has chosen to realize His plan for creation. It's not saying that He "has" to do this or that, it's just that that's how He saw fit to go about it. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.

If he is doing that merely out of choice, and not because he has to, then it contradicts omnibenevolence. Because an omnibenevolent being would only allow evil if it was strictly necessary.

 

[Koldo]

If you have unlimited power, Yes you can wish anything into existence.
Or you could use one thing to get to another.
Either way, It doesn't demean omnipotence.

If God wanted a candy bar, He could just have a candy bar.
Or he could turn himself into a human, Come down to earth and buy a candy bar from a store.

Both are demonstrations of omnipotence.

Correct. No disagreement.
It is only a problem if he HAS to turn into a human to get a candy bar.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But with respect you haven't addressed what I said. Suffering isn't necessary unless the world has to be the way it is, and since an omnipotent God cannot be under any compunction to create the world he certainly can't lie under any necessity to create evil in the world. And even if we eventually reach a state of compassion the contradiction still stands unassailed, for not even God can undo what is done, re-write history or make the past non-exisent.

It is necessary due to how God chose to create the universe as a work that is continually unfolding rather than perfect from the start.

Did God Have Any Choice?

The conclusion, even from this extremely simplified outline of the evidence, is clear. God’s decision to create a material world was inescapably a decision to create breakable, mortal beings. Moreover, one of the iron laws of God’s universe is Darwinian natural selection, which enforces selfish behavior on the part of all living things as the price of survival and evolutionary progress—even though, as a practical certainty, this selfishness eventually entails sin on the part of moral creatures. Life cannot evolve any other way.

God, in the Christian view, knew this from the beginning, and knew that we would eventually need an incarnate example of perfect, divine altruism to show us how to transcend our original selfishness and even the limited, self-interested sort of altruism that evolution can create. To our surprise, God was able to use precisely the selfish, ethically repugnant Darwinian process (which we, in our distrust of the merely material, are so ready to despise) in creating a world divinely approved as “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Thus it is not accurate or helpful to view this world as “fallen,” or Darwinian evolution as “evil.” Rather, like a booster rocket lifting astronauts into orbit, they are good and necessary for their purpose but limited in their potential, and must be transcended in order for us to reach higher.

Instead, we have imagined that God had a choice, that the world could have been different. But ours is not just the best of all possible worlds; it is the only possible world. God could no more make a dynamic, living material world in which bad things do not happen than God could make a square circle, or a rock too big to lift. It would be just as much a logical and physical contradiction. Our failure to comprehend, even today, that it is a contradiction results from our continuing to think of the cosmos as static even while we pay lip service to an evolutionary worldview. Teilhard saw long ago that “the problem of evil, insoluble in the case of a static universe,” is no more than a pseudoproblem, which does not even arise in the case of an evolving universe (Christianity and Evolution, p. 196). Evil itself is all too real, but the philosophical “problem of evil” is merely an optical illusion of the mind, an artifact of an outmoded understanding of the world.

This historic insight, which we owe to modern evolutionary science, has been too long overlooked by theologians and too long denied to people laboring under the faith-corroding fantasy that suffering and death are the inscrutable, arbitrary will of a callous God. The Christian God is an incarnate God who cares, who suffers with the world and with us, like a woman in labor, to bring forth something new and wonderful. But the result will be worth the suffering: “When she has borne her child, she no longer remembers her pain” (Jn. 16:21).

Evolution, Evil and Original Sin | America Magazine

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If he is doing that merely out of choice, and not because he has to, then it contradicts omnibenevolence. Because an omnibenevolent being would only allow evil if it was strictly necessary.

It is necessary due to how creation works.

 

[Koldo]

It is necessary due to how creation works.

I don't comprehend what you mean.
You have just said to me that he could have done otherwise.

Do you mean there are certain rules behind creation that he can't change?
Rules that restrict his power?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't comprehend what you mean.
You have just said to me that he could have done otherwise.

Do you mean there are certain rules behind creation that he can't change?
Rules that restrict his power?

He could've but it would not have been logical to do so. After all, He did create the rules that govern creation so obviously He saw that this was the best way to create and carry out His plans.

 

[Koldo]

He could've but it would not have been logical to do so. After all, He did create the rules that govern creation so obviously He saw that this was the best way to create and carry out His plans.

Why wouldn't it have been logical to do so?
What would be the logical problem in creating the universe differently?

 

[cottage]

See, Without God, That is your perspective.
With God, It's something else entirely.
Nothing is truly bad, Everything is simply more, A step, A path.

Don't be angry or disheartened, There is a reason for everything, Just because you are unaware right now, Doesn't mean there isn't something greater going on

I know it's hard to see it, Because you're looking with Godless eyes, And we won't be able to agree until you understand and experience God, I know some would say that seems arrogant, But all I'm saying is that you and I have different perspectives.

Suffering is good and necessary, And I stand by that.
It's the flesh that is greedy and selfish, The flesh that needs to be denied.

Anyway, I'm sounding a bit preachy, So I'll finish up.

Well yes, it really is a bit preachy. Many posts back you were at least giving me proper answers, but now all I’m getting is the snake oil sales talk. Nothing of any substance whatsoever in that.

You really shouldn't say 'That wouldn't be very Christian of you' Or anything similar, It's putting expectations on people just because of their faith, And that's hypocritical.

This is what I actually said:

“We wouldn’t for example argue as individuals that we have personally benefitted from suffering and therefore suffering is not a bad thing generally, when others are suffering real pain and wretchedness. That would hardly be Christian!”

That is in line with Christian ethics. One doesn’t place concern with oneself or one's own interests above the well-being or interests of others

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why wouldn't it have been logical to do so?
What would be the logical problem in creating the universe differently?

Because any other world would result in a contradiction and restriction on the dynamism and free will of the creation. If there was a world where there were no suffering or evil, then it would not be a world of rational beings with free will. Since God did not create higher species to be robots, that would be a violation of His will.

 

[Thana]

Well yes, it really is a bit preachy. Many posts back you were at least giving me proper answers, but now all I’m getting is the snake oil sales talk. Nothing of any substance whatsoever in that.

That was unnecessary.

 

[Koldo]

Because any other world would result in a contradiction and restriction on the dynamism and free will of the creation. If there was a world where there were no suffering or evil, then it would not be a world of rational beings with free will. Since God did not create higher species to be robots, that would be a violation of His will.

What about the natural evil?
Evil not caused directly by agents with free will.
For example, a hurricane and an earthquake that kills a lot of people or injury them. Why are these things necessary for free will?

What is in your take on other animals?
Do they have free will too?
If not, then why does god allow them to cause harms to us? And why do they suffer?

What is your take on our limitations?
For example, it is beyond my power to kill a person at this moment by using the power of my mind ( quite literally speaking ).
Do you consider this to be a restriction of our free will?
If it is, then why would god want some of us to have more free will than others?
If it is not, then why not create a world where there is evil and suffering but to much a lesser extent? Where people are unable to kill others, for example.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think in terms of logic the argument is that an omnipotent God is capable of creating a world where free will is exercised without suffering, where lessons can be learned without having to suffer, where one can grow stronger without having to have suffered. This is by definition not the best that God could do, even if we cannot see otherwise.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What about the natural evil?
Evil not caused directly by agents with free will.
For example, a hurricane and an earthquake that kills a lot of people or injury them. Why are these things necessary for free will?

What is in your take on other animals?
Do they have free will too?
If not, then why does god allow them to cause harms to us? And why do they suffer?

What is your take on our limitations?
For example, it is beyond my power to kill a person at this moment by using the power of my mind ( quite literally speaking ).
Do you consider this to be a restriction of our free will?
If it is, then why would god want some of us to have more free will than others?
If it is not, then why not create a world where there is evil and suffering but to much a lesser extent? Where people are unable to kill others, for example.

Natural occurrences are not "evil". They are just parts of the natural world. Humans may not like them when they interfere with our lives in a negative way or kill us but they're morally neutral. The planet isn't deciding "oh, I'm going to destroy these houses and kill these people because I feel like it". It's just the normal processes of the planet and humans are in the way at times. Besides, many of those natural acts of destruction are good for nature on this planet.

Every living thing has the possibly to experience suffering. Non-humans aren't any different in that regard.

I don't think you know what free will is. Free will is the ability to make rational choices. So your question is moot, and silly.