• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thinking out loud about my God...

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
So if part of the group happily agreed to the purpose, and the other half did not, is it immoral?
I would imagine it is only immoral to those that disagree, right?
What would you call someone who had a factory that was half staffed with free paid employees, and half staffed with slaves? You would call that person a slave owner.

Did you agree? I remember that you don’t believe in free will so I guess you didn’t.
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
fantôme profane;2427621 said:
What would you call someone who had a factory that was half staffed with free paid employees, and half staffed with slaves? You would call that person a slave owner.

Did you agree? I remember that you don’t believe in free will so I guess you didn’t.
In your example, are you asking if the owner explained to all employees the same thing, and some freely agreed the purpose is pure and not malevolent, yet others agreed it was is malevolent, and they all worked, some freely and others not freely?

Am I understanding the scenario correctly?
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Is it immoral if the workers feel like slaves are only slaves in their own mind, because they simply don't understand what others understand? Of course this works the other way around as well, but I thought I would throw this out there for the conversation.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
In your example, are you asking if the owner explained to all employees the same thing, and some freely agreed the purpose is pure and not malevolent, yet others agreed it was is malevolent, and they all worked, some freely and others not freely?

Am I understanding the scenario correctly?
No, I don’t think you understand the scenario correctly. It would only be right if all the people were given a choice. You seem to be twisting the scenario to make it as if none of them have a choice, but some of them don’t mind so much that they don’t have a choice. Some of them are happy that they don’t have a choice. Maybe this is what they would choose if they had a choice, but they don’t have a choice. You seem to be in the position of one of those “happy slaves” trying to convince the rest that they should be happy too and that slavery is right.

I am making the moral statement that slavery is wrong. The factory owner in my example is doing something that is wrong, it is not half wrong and half right because he has some free employees, it is wrong.

Is it immoral if the workers feel like slaves are only slaves in their own mind, because they simply don't understand what others understand? Of course this works the other way around as well, but I thought I would throw this out there for the conversation.
Try this scenario. What if I kidnapped you because I thought it was the best thing for you. I thought that it was best for you to work in my factory. I felt that you would be safer here, I would provide you with food and shelter. What would that make me? It would still make me a slave owner and it would still be wrong.

Anyway I think we are getting too far into this scenario and missing the point that this scenario was intended to point out. Let’s go back to what you said earlier in this thread.

if I have the power to create sentience, and that was my only purpose was to simply create sentient beings, then it would seem malevolent to destroy them, like killing ants with a magnifying glass.
If however, I create sentient beings, that are to serve a specific purpose, and then the purpose runs its course, I don't find it malevolent to the either choose to keep the being or rid of the being, as the being was not created simply to live, but to serve a purpose. To me that does not fit the definition of malevolence.
Here you are not saying that it is in the best interest of the created beings and they would agree if they only understood. Here you are saying that beings are created to fulfill the purpose of “God”.

If you are not giving full consideration to the inherent value, the rights, the feelings, the autonomy of these beings it does fit the definition of immoral. At least if fits my definition.
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
fantôme profane;2427685 said:
If you are not giving full consideration to the inherent value, the rights, the feelings, the autonomy of these beings it does fit the definition of immoral. At least if fits my definition.
So let me ask you this.
If there is a God, can you imagine a world to which the created beings have a choice whether or not to like God?
Why would God do that? And if God did that, why would God want to keep them created if they don't like them?
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
So let me ask you this.
If there is a God, can you imagine a world to which the created beings have a choice whether or not to like God?
Yes.
Why would God do that?
I think a more important question is "Why would an omnipotent being create life at all?"

And if God did that, why would God want to keep them created if they don't like them?
Because He is loving, and terminating a life on a whim is not loving.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Should God love every sentient being He creates?

Is it fair to allow a being to experience sentience and then take that beings life away from it?

Is God guilty of malevolence if he doesn't love every sentient being, and doesn't allow them all to live forever?

Define Malevolent:
Does God have a right to grant eternal life to those that want it on God's terms, and to deny eternal life to those that want it on terms that God deems in error, and despite further instruction they never want it on God's terms?
If it had no ill will, then the definition of malevolence would not apply.

But usually this sort of theology is coupled with violence. Like your proposal of a worldwide earthquake (which would cause great calamity and suffering, in addition to death), and the proposals of wrath or violence that typically accompany the description of a deity terminating life. These proposals would be malevolent by definition. I haven't seen a deity proposal where it decides to end lives by making them swiftly and painlessly disappear into nothingness.

And even if the deity in question did do such a thing, and managed to decouple violence from his taking of life, then the deity is still not valuing the concept of life itself. By taking it, even against the will of the one that lives, god demonstrates itself to be a callous entity.

If however, I create sentient beings, that are to serve a specific purpose, and then the purpose runs its course, I don't find it malevolent to the either choose to keep the being or rid of the being, as the being was not created simply to live, but to serve a purpose. To me that does not fit the definition of malevolence.
It depends on what that purpose is. The purpose may very well be malevolent, or it might not be.

Consider the example of a person that is born, lives a hard, unhappy, or terrible life, and then god takes this person's life. If God had complete control of this process, then it is malevolent. If it did not, then it is not omnipotent.

CS Lewis wrote much about this.

He suggested that if such a being existed, then Justice could not be balanced. I know I will do a terrible job explaining it, but see if this makes some sense as to why I question that position of Love.

Imagine in a court of law, that Love trumped everything.
The trial is about a friend whom you love dearly, but the friend did a grievous wrong. He shot someone accidentally. Now justice determines, he must be pay a price for this wrong, and typically it would be jail time.
If we acted only by and according to love, we would consider the friends family perhaps, and children and might let him go free out of Love, and if that person goes free, why not everyone. Love might cure them of their desire to do wrongs.

Anyway the point is Love by itself, defined in such a way that excludes justice, balance, purpose etc... Renders the word love into an awkward meaning.

So while I agree, that Love cannot not love, I see no reason to conclude this means all beings must live forever.
The example is flawed. Trials exist because humans have weaknesses. We can be harmed. Justice is necessary to maintain order and peace.

Beings that cannot be harmed, and that can prevent any other being from becoming harmed, have no need of trials, no need for justice, and no need to be unloving.

If an omnipotent god exists, then problems, suffering, unhappiness, and so forth, are all optional games rather than something the deity has problems dealing with. If it has problems dealing with them, it is not omnipotent.

So then, if God is Love, and most religions I know of believe this.
Does this by definition mean all beings must live forever? This seems to be a bit of a leap, and to some degree, wishful thinking on our part.
What does your religion teach on this subject? I have explained what mine teaches, at least how I read it.
What reason does your religion give for keeping all beings alive forever?
No, love doesn't mean all beings must live forever. It does, however, mean not to inflict violence on others, or have callous purposes for things.


Basically what it comes down to is that propositions regarding a deity like this can either be demonstrated to be unloving, or lacking in omnipotence, or both.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
So let me ask you this.
If there is a God, can you imagine a world to which the created beings have a choice whether or not to like God?
Why would God do that? And if God did that, why would God want to keep them created if they don't like them?

What makes you think god would have such a fragile ego that he needed constant attention and praise in the first place? If god existed he wouldn't be so petty, infantile and needy. That's the folly of religion; it tries to anthropomorphize and attach human attributes (such as our emotions, fears, prejudices, etc.) to god, essentially a watered down, corrupted, distorted cartoon caricature.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
So let me ask you this.
If there is a God, can you imagine a world to which the created beings have a choice whether or not to like God?
Why would God do that? And if God did that, why would God want to keep them created if they don't like them?
Honestly I find it easier to imagine a “God” that doesn’t really care whether or not we “like” him than imagining a “God” that needs to be liked.

If you are just asking me to use my imagination them perhaps “God” isn’t emotionally needy like us mere humans. Perhaps “God” isn’t petty and vindictive like us mere humans. Perhaps “God” isn’t afraid of not being liked.

Interestingly, some people actually believe that “God” created “Satan” just some there would be someone to oppose him.

If you are asking me to use my imagination, I can imagine all kinds of “Gods”.

It has also been observed by some people that we create “God” in our own image, perhaps it is not “God” who needs to be liked.
 

diosangpastol

Dios - ang - Pastol
Want to share this great story...



'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist

professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his

new students to stand.



'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'



'Yes sir,' the student says.



'So you believe in God?'



'Absolute ly. '



'Is God good?'



'Sure! God's good.'



'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'



'Yes '



'Are you good or evil?'



'The Bible says I'm evil.'



The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a

moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here

and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'



'Yes sir, I would.'



'So you're good...!'



'I wouldn't say that.'



'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you

could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'



The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't,

does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he

prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer

that one?'



The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor

says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the

student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'



'Er.yes, ' the student says.



'Is Satan good?'



The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'



'Then where does Satan come from?'



The student falters. 'From God'



'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil

in this world?'



'Yes, sir.'



'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'



'Yes '



'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created

everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to

the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'



Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality?

Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this

world?'



Th e student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'



'So who created them?'



The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his

question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the

lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is

mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues on to another student. 'Do you

believe in Jesus Christ, son?'



The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'



The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to

identify and observe the world around you.



Have you ever seen Jesus?'



'No sir. I've never seen Him.'



'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'



'No, sir, I have not.'



'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus?

Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for

that matter?'



'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'



'Yet you still believe in him?'



'Yes'

r

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,

science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'



'Nothing, ' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'



'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science

has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'



The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his

own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '



'Yes.'



' And is there such a thing as cold?'



'Yes, son, there's cold too.'



'No sir, there isn't.'



The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.



The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.

'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,

unlimite d heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we

don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below

zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There

is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than

the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study

when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter

have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of

heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence

of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units

because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the

absence of it.'



Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom,

sounding like a hammer.



'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'



'Yes ,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it

isn't darkness?'



'You 're wrong again, sir.



Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have

low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have

no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't

it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness

isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'



The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will

be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'



'Yes, professor, my point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to

start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'



The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can

you explain how?'



'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You

argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God.

You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can

measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and

magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death

cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the

absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students

that they evolved from a monkey?'



'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,

yes, of course I do.'



'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'



The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes

where the argument is going. A very good semester indeed.



'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and

cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not

teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'



The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion

has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the

other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student

looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen

the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there

anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the

professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one

appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of

empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no

brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no

brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'



Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his

face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man

answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'



'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with

life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'of course, there is. We see it

every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It

is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.

These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'



To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it

does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is

just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the

absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what

happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's

like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that

comes when there is no light.'



The professor sat down.
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
fantôme profane;2428414 said:
Honestly I find it easier to imagine a “God” that doesn’t really care whether or not we “like” him than imagining a “God” that needs to be liked.

If you are just asking me to use my imagination them perhaps “God” isn’t emotionally needy like us mere humans. Perhaps “God” isn’t petty and vindictive like us mere humans. Perhaps “God” isn’t afraid of not being liked.

Interestingly, some people actually believe that “God” created “Satan” just some there would be someone to oppose him.

If you are asking me to use my imagination, I can imagine all kinds of “Gods”.

It has also been observed by some people that we create “God” in our own image, perhaps it is not “God” who needs to be liked.
I guess you assume that I believe God "needs" to be liked. I don't, I simply assert that according to the bible He will be liked by some and not by others, as a matter of fact, not need.
Anyway, thank you for all the thoughts on the topic...
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
So why does He reward those who listen to Him, and in some versions, punish those who don't?
Your idea of reward, I think assume the traditional view of reward, like "if you do this, then you get this".
The bible doesn't really teach that, even though it uses language similar to that at times, it doesn't hold water when we look at the entire bible.
The fact is, you are saved whether you want it or not, however, once saved, your heart begins to change, and you become more interested in the things of God, and everything begins to make more sense.
Hope that makes sense.

Again, punishment is not as I think you assume, "if you do this, then this will happen to you". It is really meant to be "if you touch a hot stove this is what happens."

Does that make sense?
 

PhAA

Grand Master
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it

does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is

just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the

absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what

happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's

like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that

comes when there is no light.'



The professor sat down.
If this is true, then I guess all atheists should be out there killing people, raping women, causing terrorism, etc? Some terrorists are actually extreme believers, extreme, but believers. Even the crusades. And the US claiming to be a country of believers, making war against other extreme believers.

I think the logic about the light is from St. Thomas Aquinas?
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I guess you assume that I believe God "needs" to be liked. I don't, I simply assert that according to the bible He will be liked by some and not by others, as a matter of fact, not need.
Anyway, thank you for all the thoughts on the topic...

Ah, the bible. If there is a god, why not use something more sensible such as reason and compassion to find him rather than by relying upon something repulsive and nonsensical as the ancient superstitions of primitive goat herders? Why trust something that has neither logic nor evidence to stand on as a guide for truth? Besides, why on earth would you want to use something that instructs the reader on how to sell their own daughter into sexual slavery (Exodus 21:7-11) as a moral compass?
 
Top