Why would God's ultimate power come with ultimate responsibility?

[Trailblazer]

The following is a post from an atheist I was chatting with on another forum. I told him I would post it here to get other opinions.

Nothing you said addresses that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. The only argument you could make is that God is either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not perfectly good. Which is it? The badly written, badly edited, contradictory, book Christians follow makes no sense to anyone who's read it that can think. Heck you don't even have anything written about your God from the people who met him. So use logic, you can't have infinite power and not be responsible for everything.

responsibility
something that it is your job or duty to deal with:

• It's her responsibility to ensure the project finishes on time.
• She takes her responsibilities as a nurse very seriously.

responsibility

 

[1213]

Nothing you said addresses that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. The only argument you could make is that God is either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not perfectly good. Which is it?

God is only responsible of His own actions. Humans are responsible of their own actions.

Good seems to be just a subjective opinion. I think God is all powerful, all knowing and perfectly good. Unlike tyrannical human leaders, God gave us freedom. And God is responsible for that. God also has given us rules how to live well, which is why it is not His fault, if people do wrong things.

The badly written, badly edited, contradictory, book Christians follow makes no sense to anyone who's read it that can think.

Bible is the best book in the world. And one reason why I believe it is written in God's influence is that atheists can't point any real contradiction in it. Bible is contradictory only if person doesn't understand it and don't think enough.

Heck you don't even have anything written about your God from the people who met him.

How do you know that? And why would it be a problem? It can be true, even if it would be so that it is written from the eye witness testimonies.

So use logic, you can't have infinite power and not be responsible for everything.

Why would all powerful be responsible of actions that are done by some other beings? No logical reason to think so.

If you mean, God allows evil people exist this short moment, I can agree that God is responsible for that. But, do you really think God should not allow people to be free? And do you think God should end the life of evil people instantly and not give them a chance?

I think God's love and greatness comes visible in that He has given this opportunity also for those who hate Him.

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Matt. 5:44-45

It is unfortunate that some people are evil and do bad things. But, I don't think it is a problem, because it doesn't last forever, and it can't destroy anyone's soul. In Biblical point of view, this life is like the virtual reality in the movie Matrix. People were expelled to this world where we can experience what evil truly means. And those who are righteous, can after this have eternal life, where all suffering is compensated. Therefore, even if someone would be innocent and suffer without just reason, it is compensated to him, which shows God bears His responsibility for allowing people to have this lesson. And I think He would be good, even if He would not do so.

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna [also translated hell].
Matt. 10:28

 

[SalixIncendium]

As a parent, one has the power to raise a child in a protective "bubble" and prevent any pain that might befall them, but if one didn't allow their child to face a degree of trials and tribulations through their childhood, is that effective parenting? Will a child who has faced no pain in their life be developed enough to be prepared to live by themselves in the real world?

Now translate this relationship between the parent and children to God and His children.

 

[Quintessence]

@Trailblazer

Are we supposed to only consider the definition of responsibility you present in the opening post - which is probably not what they person you were talking to was intending - or are we permitted to use the most common definition of the term (e.g., "the quality or state of being responsible; esp. being the cause or explanation of")? I mean, as someone who accepts all reality is interconnected, everything is more or less responsible for everything else in a sense, so... I don't see how your god would be exempt from that. Especially if your god is said to have very direct causatory control over all of reality - it would be connected at the first degree.

 

[viole]

The following is a post from an atheist I was chatting with on another forum. I told him I would post it here to get other opinions.

Nothing you said addresses that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. The only argument you could make is that God is either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not perfectly good. Which is it? The badly written, badly edited, contradictory, book Christians follow makes no sense to anyone who's read it that can think. Heck you don't even have anything written about your God from the people who met him. So use logic, you can't have infinite power and not be responsible for everything.

responsibility
something that it is your job or duty to deal with:

• It's her responsibility to ensure the project finishes on time.
• She takes her responsibilities as a nurse very seriously.

responsibility

Well, that is correct, if God is defined as perfectly moral.

Therefore, if God is perfectly moral, then the fact that He allows evil can only be logically explained by concluding that what looks like evil, is not evil. God let apparently bad things to happen, because it is for the common good, and they are therefore functional towards optimizing the final Good.

So, if I take my gun and shoot the first kid I see, and God did not stop me, then we can conclude that God sees the demise of that little child as contributing to the best of possible worlds, and it was therefore not evil at all. Same with Him letting about 30,000 kids die today.

Since God is assumed to intervene eventually, as Christians believe, that entails that He does something against it, if He wants. So, the claim that He does not meddle, because of free will and such, is theologically not viable. Ergo, if He does not do anything today, it is because He wants those things to happen today.

Anything else would make God look like a moral incompetent. Or a moral competent without any power.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Soandso]

As a parent, one has the power to raise a child in a protective "bubble" and prevent any pain that might befall them, but if one didn't allow their child to face a degree of trials and tribulations through their childhood, is that effective parenting? Will a child who has faced no pain in their life be developed enough to be prepared to live by themselves in the real world?

Now translate this relationship between the parent and children to God and His children.

To me that hits a little different when the parent also sets up the kind of pain and tribulation the child will have to face. The God isn't just the parent, but also the architect for the world that the child gets to experience

I guess this is one reason the idea of the monotheistic god just doesn't gel well with me. Life is complicated. At least with polytheism, there's an explanation for why life is so diverse and colorful, and why there are so many aspects of life that play out in so many different ways. I struggle to see how life in all of it's chaotic complexity could come from only one Divine source

 

[HonestJoe]

I'd suggest this boils down to the fundamental contradiction with how God is depicted in Christianity (and some of the related monotheistic faiths).

On one hand, God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator being, existing outside the time and space of the universe and beyond the understanding of human beings. On the other hand, we have the anthropomorphic God, being happy, sad, angry and surprised, having desires, wishes, opinions and, of specific relevance here, morals (or not).

As I see it, these two images are entirely inconsistent. A being that was truly all-powerful, all-knowing, and particularly, not subject to linear time those "human-like" characteristics simply don't make sense. It is the fact we don't know everything, can be helpless or vulnerable and are subject to liner time that gives us all of these characteristics in the first place.

As long as you try to have it both ways, you'll never be able to address this kind of question. Of course, if you don't try to have it both ways, you break some fundamental aspects of your religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is only responsible of His own actions. Humans are responsible of their own actions.

Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game. We are each responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions.

Sometimes, the foreseeable consequence of one person's action is that someone will commit some secondary action. In those cases, both people bear responsibility for the secondary action.

 

[PureX]

Having no possible means of grasping the reality of omniscience, omnipresence, or omnipotence, we nevertheless choose to pass judgement on an entity that we imaginatively endow with all these traits.

Seems like a game for fools, to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As a parent, one has the power to raise a child in a protective "bubble" and prevent any pain that might befall them, but if one didn't allow their child to face a degree of trials and tribulations through their childhood, is that effective parenting? Will a child who has faced no pain in their life be developed enough to be prepared to live by themselves in the real world?

Now translate this relationship between the parent and children to God and His children.

This analogy gets very strange if we give the parents godlike powers.

If it's within the parents' control to shape "the real world" as they see fit, then any "trials" they put their child through end up as arbitrary cruelty, since it was in their ability to choose a "real world" that didn't need those "trials."

 

[Alien826]

As a parent, one has the power to raise a child in a protective "bubble" and prevent any pain that might befall them, but if one didn't allow their child to face a degree of trials and tribulations through their childhood, is that effective parenting? Will a child who has faced no pain in their life be developed enough to be prepared to live by themselves in the real world?

Now translate this relationship between the parent and children to God and His children.

If you see the world as some kind of training ground, then it makes sense up to a point. The problem is that a loving parent would not subject a child to experiences that it was totally unequipped to deal with. By all means allow a child to fall over as it learns to walk, but make sure it is on a soft carpet or whatever. Later, a skinned knee is acceptable as he learns to ride a bike, but not getting killed in traffic. This applies not only to kindness, but also efficacy. If an experience totally destroys a person's ability to learn, how does that work? I'll list a few examples.

A baby is born with a medical condition that causes intense pain and death in a few days.
Someone falls off a high cliff. He learns that it is a good idea to avoid the edge of cliffs, but that the end of it (literally).
A person is born a sociopath and is totally unable to change that.

 

[Nakosis]

The following is a post from an atheist I was chatting with on another forum. I told him I would post it here to get other opinions.

Nothing you said addresses that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. The only argument you could make is that God is either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not perfectly good. Which is it? The badly written, badly edited, contradictory, book Christians follow makes no sense to anyone who's read it that can think. Heck you don't even have anything written about your God from the people who met him. So use logic, you can't have infinite power and not be responsible for everything.

responsibility
something that it is your job or duty to deal with:

• It's her responsibility to ensure the project finishes on time.
• She takes her responsibilities as a nurse very seriously.

responsibility

One is, imo, responsibility for their actions as well as inaction.
For example if you have the power to save a child life and choose not, you are still responsible for the results of your inaction.

Sure, you let your child explore the world on their own so they gain an understanding for themselves of actions and consequences, but you are still responsible for whatever happens to them because of your choice to not intercede.

 

[HonestJoe]

Having no possible means of grasping the reality of omniscience, omnipresence, or omnipotence, we nevertheless choose to pass judgement on an entity that we imaginatively endow with all these traits.

Seems like a game for fools, to me.

The passing judgement or the imaginative endowment?

 

[osgart]

Why call the being God if it has no authority, power, and responsibility toward humans? That being would be entirely meaningless to anyone alive if it had no relationship to humans.

Ultimate power, otoh, if moral toward other life necessitates total responsibility in using any ultimate power. If ultimate power is never wielded then Godhood is moot. Not an issue.

To be a God is to be in authority and actively involved in the lives of those who owe responsibility to that God in a just way.

Power and authority are not the same thing. Authority is about just and true responsibility. Power can be used to rule in a malevolent way, and without any moral consideration nor any regard for anyone's well being.

I can't imagine calling any being God if there's no proof, nor evidence of authority, and responsible relationship toward humans. If ultimate power alone is the requirement to be God, then I would never give credence to such a God.

As it is Omni Gods are imaginary. And I've never met a genuine God, nor have I heard any truth of one.

The sole purpose of morality is to make life worth living, and to form relationships on the basis of deserve, and trustworthiness. An immoral God is not a God at all. And having no responsibility to others isn't worth any reverence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

This analogy gets very strange if we give the parents godlike powers.

It’s a good thing we’re not doing that, then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It’s a good thing we’re not doing that, then.

That's what you asked us to do:

Now translate this relationship between the parent and children to God and His children.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That's what you asked us to do:

I’m not sure how you read giving the parent God-like powers into that.

Parents only have parent-like powers.

 

[Truthseeker]

To me that hits a little different when the parent also sets up the kind of pain and tribulation the child will have to face. The God isn't just the parent, but also the architect for the world that the child gets to experience

Yes, I agree with that. It is not quite so simple.

 

[Trailblazer]

God is only responsible of His own actions. Humans are responsible of their own actions.

I fully agree.

Why would all powerful be responsible of actions that are done by some other beings? No logical reason to think so.

I fully agree. There is nothing logical about what the atheist in the OP claimed is logical.
Why on earth would God be responsible for the choices and actions of humans?
Why would it be God's job or duty to deal with those?

responsibility
something that it is your job or duty to deal with:
responsibility

If you mean, God allows evil people exist this short moment, I can agree that God is responsible for that. But, do you really think God should not allow people to be free? And do you think God should end the life of evil people instantly and not give them a chance?

No, I don't think that God is responsible for evil people since those are choices those people make.

I don't think that God should end their lives. I think the justice system is responsible to decide what to do with them when they commit crimes.
I believe they should get the appropriate prison sentence but in some cases the death penalty is warranted. According to the Baha'i Faith teachings, if they get the death penalty God will not impose a second penalty upon them, and I think that means that if they get life in prison God will punish them after they die and are judged by God.

It is unfortunate that some people are evil and do bad things. But, I don't think it is a problem, because it doesn't last forever, and it can't destroy anyone's soul.

But what about these verses?

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

The way I interpret those verses Jesus was saying to deny our selfish desires, things we want that are not of God, and to follow in His Way. For whoever will live for self shall lose his eternal life, but whoever will sacrifice his life for the sake of Jesus and God shall gain eternal life. It is the soul that gets eternal life, not the body.

So if we live for self and the worldly things we gain the world but we lose our soul in the sense that we lose eternal life.

And those who are righteous, can after this have eternal life, where all suffering is compensated. Therefore, even if someone would be innocent and suffer without just reason, it is compensated to him, which shows God bears His responsibility for allowing people to have this lesson. And I think He would be good, even if He would not do so.

I believe that people who suffer through no fault of their own will be compensated in the afterlife, but I am not sure what will happen to people who brought on their own suffering. I don't think their compensation will be as much as for those who were not responsible for their own suffering.

I never thought of it that way, as showing that God bears His responsibility for allowing people to have this lesson, but that is a very good way of looking at it. Indirectly, God is responsible for all suffering since God created a world in which He knew people would suffer,

I do not think I brought on my own suffering, and the numerous counselors and psychologists I have seen over a number of years agree that what happened was not my fault. For anyone who has suffered, especially for people like me who have suffered a lot for most of their lives, there is the following passage, and there are probably similar verses in the Bible:

“O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329

 

[Trailblazer]

Will a child who has faced no pain in their life be developed enough to be prepared to live by themselves in the real world?

Will an adult who has faced no pain in their life be developed enough to be prepared to live in the spiritual world?
I think not, but I still don't believe that excuses God for creating a world where people suffer, usually through no fault of their own.