Originally posted by googlefudge
This argument is stupid.

You are arguing that god cannot change peoples world view, or make laws
that reflect good moral values, because the people were too primitive???

You don't think god could teach these people???

What kind of a pathetic god are you imagining?

God cannot change their world view without denying them free will. Moral codes depend on the prevailing material situation. Unless he intervenes in the world the whole time, in which case he may as well reopen the Garden of Eden, then he has to provide them with laws that aren't going to leave them overpopulated next time there's a famine. They might seem harsh to us but not as harsh as a famine is when there's too many mouths to feed.

Originally posted by DeepThought
God cannot change their world view without denying them free will. Moral codes depend on the prevailing material situation. Unless he intervenes in the world the whole time, in which case he may as well reopen the Garden of Eden, then he has to provide them with laws that aren't going to leave them overpopulated next time there's a famine. They might seem harsh to us but not as harsh as a famine is when there's too many mouths to feed.

God cannot change their world view without denying them free will.

Nonsense, this is the kind of rubbish theists come out with.

Try thinking a little and see if you can manage to think of ways of changing someone's
world view without denying them free will [presuming such a thing actually exists].

Moral codes depend on the prevailing material situation.

This is true, which is why I said as much in a previous post.

Unless he intervenes in the world the whole time, in which case he may as well
reopen the Garden of Eden, then he has to provide them with laws that aren't going to
leave them overpopulated next time there's a famine.

Or, just for example, god could teach them how to improve their farming and engineering
technology, and the principles of science so that they can make and store enough food
to not have a famine. And why the hell are you accepting as a premise that it's bad for
god to intervene to make the world better having made it in the first place.
You are accepting Christian dogma as a given to make your arguments that Christian dogma
is moral. What ever for?

They might seem harsh to us but not as harsh as a famine is when there's too many
mouths to feed.

They are still worse than the rules and laws I can think of, and I don't have gods supposed
knowledge and powers. I could build a better society with the given technology, so why the
hell can't a god?


I'm still going with "This is a stupid argument" and raising that to "epically stupid".

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Sure, what I was saying was not intended to exclude that, but it is the emotional part that will most strongly resist counter-arguments. If it were solely an intellectual commitment then you would have no reason to not accept his axioms. The premises these things are based on are selected emotionally, where there is no empirical evidence to rely on, ...[text shortened]... se laws for Israel. If this is too "emotional" for someone, I am willing to bear that criticism.

Please understand, stating that someone has an emotional commitment to a position is in no way a criticism. I am emotionally committed to a greater or lesser extent to the positions I hold. Googlefudge seems to get quite emotionally involved in these debates, I do not think that he is irrational either. Emotion does not entail a lack of rationality, the converse in fact - an utterly emotionless person could simply not function, they wouldn't be able to answer basic questions like: "Tea or coffee?", they'd have no preference. Being ruled by emotion is a different thing and I'm not accusing anyone of that.

My purpose, often, is just to see whether arguments are sustainable or not. I sometimes get upset when I'm accused of being an atheist, which amounts to an assault on my identity, or if I feel my position is being grossly misrepresented, but have stopped getting upset with people just for disagreeing with me (even though I'm obviously always right 😉). I made a conscious effort to avoid flaming a while ago, which helps me ignore random insults.

As things stand so far in the debate, I'm thinking that a claim of God as an ethical entity is sustainable as I haven't yet seen (*) an overwhelmingly convincing argument to the contrary. Please note that sustainable is not the same as sound. It just means I don't think it's been demonstrated to be unsound yet.

I've got to admit I never got much past Kings in the Old Testament and Acts in the New Testament. I suppose I ought to put the effort in. I quite like your coherentist line of argument. It's philosophically appealing to me.

(*) I haven't read all of the plethora of posts after the one I'm replying to yet - they're coming thick and fast at the moment.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Please understand, stating that someone has an emotional commitment to a position is in no way a criticism. I am emotionally committed to a greater or lesser extent to the positions I hold. Googlefudge seems to get quite emotionally involved in these debates, I do not think that he is irrational either. Emotion does not entail a lack of rationality, t ...[text shortened]... ethora of posts after the one I'm replying to yet - they're coming thick and fast at the moment.

As things stand so far in the debate, I'm thinking that a claim of God as an ethical entity is sustainable as I haven't yet seen (*) an overwhelmingly convincing argument to the contrary. Please note that sustainable is not the same as sound. It just means I don't think it's been demonstrated to be unsound yet.

What you are talking about here looks rather like a case for "the argument from evil".
The best treatment of which I have seen here is in this thread started by LemmonJello

"An Inductive Argument from Evil"

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=158939

What follows below is an interesting inductive version of the evidential problem of evil, as taken directly from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/. It's an inductive argument in virtue of the move from (8) to (9).

For theists out there, I am interested to know which premise(s) you reject and why. In particular, I am interested if there are those who would deny the move from (8) to (9) and why.

------

1. Both the property of intentionally allowing an animal to die an agonizing death in a forest fire, and the property of allowing a child to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, are wrongmaking characteristics of an action, and very serious ones.

2. Our world contains animals that die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children who undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer.

3. An omnipotent being could prevent such events, if he knew that those events were about to occur.

4. An omniscient being would know that such events were about to occur.

5. If a being allows something to take place that he knows is about to happen, and which he knows he could prevent, then that being intentionally allows the event in question to occur.

Therefore:
6. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are cases where he intentionally allows animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer.

7. In many such cases, no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of both apply to the case in question, and also are sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristic.

Therefore:
8. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that have wrongmaking properties such that there are no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of that both apply to the cases in question, and that are also sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristics.

Therefore it is likely that:
9. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that have wrongmaking properties such that there are no rightmaking characteristics—including ones that we are not aware of—that both apply to the cases in question, and that are also sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristics.

10. An action is morally wrong, all things considered, if it has a wrongmaking characteristic that is not counterbalanced by any rightmaking characteristics.

Therefore:
11. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that are morally wrong, all things considered.

Therefore:
12. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then that being both intentionally refrains from performing certain actions in situations where it is morally wrong to do so, all things considered, and knows that he is doing so.

13. A being who intentionally refrains from performing certain actions in situations where it is morally wrong to do so, all things considered, and knows that he is doing so, is not morally perfect.

Therefore:
14. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then that being is not morally perfect.

Therefore:
15. There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.
16. If God exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

Therefore:
17. God does not exist.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wow...

The fact that a society with slavery might be better than a predefined worse
society doesn't mean that that society is MAXIMALLY optimised for wellbeing
given the available technology and resources. And I cannot believe I had to
say that.

And again, we are in this argument, talking about the commandments of a GOD.

Do I have to hit y ...[text shortened]... e arguing otherwise.

Stop doing that.

The bible is indefensible, stop trying to defend it.

You are labouring under the assumption that a society which is maximally optimised for human well being necessarily has to maximally optimise well being for all individuals in it as well.

Regards your following post. Of course I'm coming out with theist stuff, I want to see if the argument is sustainable. I'd regard your repeated resorts to insults evidence that it is.

You're expecting God to hand out treats. Libertarian free will is to some extent entailed by their belief system. It becomes pretty incoherent if humans don't have it. In their theology it is entirely consistent for our fates to be in our own hands, which must work at both the individual and societal level. It's part of the point of the Garden of Eden story.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You are labouring under the assumption that a society which is maximally optimised for human well being necessarily has to maximally optimise well being for all individuals in it as well.

Regards your following post. Of course I'm coming out with theist stuff, I want to see if the argument is sustainable. I'd regard your repeated resorts to insults ...[text shortened]... at both the individual and societal level. It's part of the point of the Garden of Eden story.

You are labouring under the assumption that a society which is maximally
optimised for human well being necessarily has to maximally optimise well being
for all individuals in it as well.

No, I am saying that a maximally optimised society [and to be clear, wellbeing
optimisation is necessary but not sufficient for morality, I am not a utilitarian
remember] cannot include slavery.

Regards your following post. Of course I'm coming out with theist stuff,
I want to see if the argument is sustainable. I'd regard your repeated resorts to
insults evidence that it is.

I'm pretty sure you're committing quite a few logical fallacies by doing so.
At best it could be construed as evidence that I can't defeat the argument...
But in reality you can't even get that far.

You're expecting God to hand out treats. Libertarian free will is to some extent entailed by their belief system. It becomes pretty incoherent if humans don't have it. In their theology it is entirely consistent for our fates to be in our own hands, which must work at both the individual and societal level. It's part of the point of the Garden of Eden story.

Libertarian free will is a logical impossibility as well as a physical one, and their
beliefs ARE incoherent.

However that's still not the point.

I am judging the morality OF their religion.
That includes that purported morality of their god.

here we have a story of god actually showing up and laying down laws "THAT MAKE
THINGS WORSE"

It thus makes no sense to respond by saying that god cannot interfere.

Given that the bible includes stories of god committing genocide on people who
don't do as he wants, claiming that god couldn't have interfered for good doesn't
hold water.

Originally posted by googlefudge

As things stand so far in the debate, I'm thinking that a claim of God as an ethical entity is sustainable as I haven't yet seen (*) an overwhelmingly convincing argument to the contrary. Please note that sustainable is not the same as sound. It just means I don't think it's been demonstrated to be unsound yet.

What you are talking abo ...[text shortened]... otent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

Therefore:
17. God does not exist.[/quote][/i]

The interesting part of that argument is how it applies to animals. The human part, for a theist, is relatively easy to cope with. They have a concept of original sin. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. We gain more by our freedom than we would gain as innocents in a perfect environment. Would you like to live your entire life as a child? This entails that because our purported original ancestors rejected the rather cloying conditions of their existence we now have to accept suffering. If life had no dangers would it be worth living? The price of having fun is often suffering as anyone with a hangover will tell you. So yes, there is suffering in the world, but within the theists belief system it is something our ancestors implicitly accepted when they rebelled. Since they believe in an afterlife these injustices can be righted. The child who suffered can be compensated in heaven. This, within the belief system of Christians, was our call. It is up to us and not God to solve our own problems, that was the choice Adam and Eve made for us all in the Garden of Eden. By this line of reasoning God is good for allowing us to make our own mistakes and to suffer. To do otherwise would be to treat us as children after we had grown up.

Originally posted by googlefudge

You are labouring under the assumption that a society which is maximally
optimised for human well being necessarily has to maximally optimise well being
for all individuals in it as well.

No, I am saying that a maximally optimised society [and to be clear, wellbeing
optimisation is necessary but not sufficient for morality, I am n ...[text shortened]...
don't do as he wants, claiming that god couldn't have interfered for good doesn't
hold water.

If libertarian free will is a logical contradiction I'd like you to demonstrate it. Something that some contributors to the site, all of whom are atheists, and have actual training in that field have not been able to do is demonstrate a contradiction with omniscience, if it were inherently self-contradictory I think they'd have started there. I'd like a separate argument as to why it's ruled out by the known laws of physics. I think you are wrong to say that it is ruled out on both counts.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, on the basis that he's giving people free will it's possible for people to choose not to obey the laws. So it makes sense to make the laws close to what is likely to be observed.

No, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Bear in mind that the people at the time had a completely different world view to us.
I hear this so often, but never any actual justification for it. What makes you think this?

You can apply modern standards if you want, it's just you'll end up condemning every person whose lived from the end of the mesolithic era until the enlightenment.
Yes I can apply modern standards. And yes, if necessary, I can end up condemning ever person.

The more simple approach is to ask "Why set up the garden of Eden, stick a tree in the middle and say don't eat that.". It does seem to contradict the "Lead us not into temptation.", plea in the Lord''s prayer.
It isn't a contradiction. Its exactly the point. Its people begging God to stop tempting them: because God tends to do that. If God didn't want me coveting the neighbors wife, then what was he thinking when he gave me such a strong attraction to women?

Originally posted by RBHILL
I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel…

You'll have to excuse me for not reading monster posts like that, or for not reading every post in a thread like this. My time is rather limited, so maybe this has been dealt with, in which case I apologise.

Is there a part of the bible where your god is as clear about slavery? Is "I hate slavery" anywhere in the bible? If not, I have to say it looks suspect. It's one thing to say, I don't like slavery, and here's how you can minimize it, hopefully eradicate it all together. It's quite another to say, here's how you treat your slaves.

I would also think that an all powerful god could give advice on how to build a better society, allowing for the enlightenment to happen right at the beginning of human history, rather than play along and allow for the enlightenment to happen without his specific say so. It looks suspiciously like this god of yours doesn't actually exist when his laws and recommendations are so closely resembling the general human mindsets and concerns of the time when it was written.

Originally posted by C Hess

I would also think that an all powerful god could give advice on how to build a better society, allowing for the enlightenment to happen right at the beginning of human history, rather than play along and allow for the enlightenment to happen without his specific say so. It looks suspiciously like this god of yours doesn't actually exist when his laws and recommendations are so closely resembling the general human mindsets and concerns of the time when it was written.

This is a problem. Fallen mankind's natural tendency is to want God to "help us" have a better world and then have Him go away and leave us to ourselves. Independence

We may say "Don't go too far away. We may need You again."

But we imagine that God would give us some "bandaids" and some good advice on how we can get along without Him and be independent and happy.

The relationship for which God created us is far deeper. Since the fall of man we imagine independence (with some suggestive assistance from God if really needed). What God is after is a union of a mutual indwelling where God lives in us and we in God.

What does this like? It looks lie Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
God wants to work Himself into us.
God want to wrought His life and nature into us.

Full stop here for length.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] I would also think that an all powerful god could give advice on how to build a better society, allowing for the enlightenment to happen right at the beginning of human history, rather than play along and allow for the enlightenment to happen without his specific say so. It looks suspiciously like this god of yours doesn't actually exist when his law ...[text shortened]... mself into us.
God want to wrought His life and nature into us.

Full stop here for length.

If god wants a relationship with us humans, wouldn't it be more effective to be around us a little more? You know, show up every once in a while, tell a few stories, have a few laughs? If he can't be arsed to show himself, the least he could have done is give a few hints about the universe that we can then verify, like maybe describing microbiology before anyone had even seen a living cell. I would have settled with this god pointing out that disease is caused by tiny lifeforms not visible to the naked eye. That would at least give some credibility to the claims made from religion. To expect intelligent, rational people to take not so intelligent or rational people on their word that this non-interacting, non-revealing god exists and wants to have a relationship with us is somewhat idiotic, makes this invisible being appear non-existant, and his followers somewhat creepy (no offense).

Originally posted by DeepThought
God cannot change their world view without denying them free will.

Fallacious argument.

Originally posted by C Hess

If god wants a relationship with us humans, wouldn't it be more effective to be around us a little more?

Can you tell me why when God appeared upon Mt. Sinai in Exodus the splendor of the occurrence wore off in under 40 days? At first the multitude marveled. But it didn't stop them from wanting to make a golden calf and return back again to the slavery in Egypt.

The kind of "being around" as you imagine, God has shown us, is not that reliable to check the world loving impulse.

God was "around" the Hebrews on Mt. Sinai for 40 days in a dramatic way. Yet they erected a golden calf and demanded that Aaron take them BACK to place of their previous 400 years in the "iron furnace" of Egypt.

We have His Word to go to to have God be with us.
How much time do you want to spend there?

You know, show up every once in a while, tell a few stories, have a few laughs?

Come to you in a rather very human level, you mean ?
Like maybe show up in one of His believers and chat with you a bit?

What you could do also is pray and ask God that you don't want to miss Him by accident if He should kind of converse with you through one of His servants on a more human to human level.

Read how God showed up to Abraham's tent to have lunch with Abraham in Genesis 18. Abraham seemed to have recognized that God was in the visitation of these three men.

If he can't be arsed to show himself, the least he could have done is give a few hints about the universe that we can then verify, like maybe describing microbiology before anyone had even seen a living cell. I would have settled with this god pointing out that disease is caused by tiny lifeforms not visible to the naked eye. That would at least give some credibility to the claims made from religion. To expect intelligent, rational people to take not so intelligent or rational people on their word that this non-interacting, non-revealing god exists and wants to have a relationship with us is somewhat idiotic, makes this invisible being appear non-existant, and his followers somewhat creepy (no offense).

I am not offended. I feel a little bit sorry for people who think God is not available to them.

The barrier that makes God not real to you is your sins.
He came in Jesus Christ to deal thoroughly with that obstacle, that insulation that cuts off your enjoyment of His presence within.

I cannot promise you that the sky will part for your city this evening and you will have a Mt. Sinai experience for 40 days. I cannot promise you that.

But I do assure you that if, in the name of Jesus Christ, you begin to confess that you are a sinner and even detail some of your known sins to God, you will sense your heart coming into the presence of a holy God.

The obstacle is less your five physical senses. The obstacle is more your need to confess the need for His forgiveness of real and actual transgressions against His law, His glory, His holiness and His righteousness.

Start with the sins of your eyes today - Confess them.
Then proceed to the sins of your ears today - Confess them.
Then proceed to the sins of your mouth today - Confess them.

All the while calling Jesus "Lord Jesus" and thanking Him for forgiveness of your sins which you freely confess. God will become real to you. And forgiveness and fellowship and enjoyment of God's presence will become real to you.

Originally posted by sonship
Can you tell me why when God appeared upon Mt. Sinai in Exodus the splendor of the occurrence wore off in under 40 days? At first the multitude marveled. But it didn't stop them from wanting to make a golden calf and return back again to the slavery in Egypt.

Being ambigous and unclear on just about everything but how we must not worship the wrong beast is really helpful in establishing a good, prosperous relationship with people, it really is. How could I possibly not have experienced and accepted the greatness that is this god? I don't know. He seems to care about such deep and profound issues, I'm surprised I haven't felt the connection yet.

I'm curious. According to the bible there are clear commandments (like not killing people), that are sometimes allowed to be broken (self-defense, invading other people's countries when they're not of the same god, that sort of thing), are you also allowed to worship false idols under certain circumstances? Or is that one truly written in stone?

Back to slavery, maybe abolishing slavery is one of those okays under certain circumstances thing? Under the circumstances of the time the bible was written, here's how you treat your slaves, but feel free to not have slaves if you don't actually need them. Is that written somewhere in the bible? Is there any reason to think (from reading the bible alone), that holding people in slavery is a morally outrageous and despicable behaviour? Or is this something that modern humans have arrived at through serious consideration, and repeated discourse on the subject of human rights, perhaps?