I - an atheist - am morally better than the Christian God

[Charles]

It is no error that Bob has to exist for his altruistic daughter to exist. And no one is perfect. The logical problem of evil was solved years ago. God simply has a good reason for allowing evil temporarily. All of human existence in a fallen world is like a bad dream compared to the eternity in a new Universe for His adopted children. Strangers not allowed. Wild goats can fend for themselves.

So, the problem of evil is "solved" partly by saying that the suffering of human beings is no big thing for God? Nothing enough for him to really care about? People living all their life in pain, children being tortured to death, millions and millions of people taken to concetration camps are just "a bad dream" compared to the eternity? If this is your standard, I'm not going to follow along, to say the least. It is an inhuman attempt attempt to neglect human suffering to try to find a way to make "God" look better. Give it a second thought the next time you sing about God's eyes being even on the sparrow, him have counted each hair on our heads and the like.

And let he guess "His adopted childen" does not include the jewish children tortured and killed in the concentration camps? Or were they among the "adopted children". I fear the "bad dream" is going to be follow by an eternity in even more pain if you follow the rather traditional thinking on this area.... Let me know if you disagree.

[Ronson]

No, I believe that would only eliminate selfish people.

With the exception of mental vegetables, all people are selfish to some degree. That's the only way to survive with nature.

[Charles]

Indeed a variant of the the OP can be applied to the idea of people suffering eternal damnation... if I were God, then my doing pretty much anything other than choosing to torture people for eternity, would seem a lot more moral than the Christian God.

Theologians often try to get around this by implying God has no choice or that something about the damned themselves causes their suffering. But the thing is, if God can create a world like the one we live in/on at the moment, why can't he make a similar quality world for the damned in the afterlife? If he chooses for the quality of life for the damned in the afterlife to be lower for them than it is in this world, that's on him.

It is quite a thing for people to suggest that we should base our moral standard on someone who not only accepts but actually created a reality in which people born in a sinful world will suffer eternal punishment after having lived there perhaps even no longer than a few years, some of them actually not even being born. Even if one gets a hundred years to live in, lives a rather normal life but happens to honestly believe there is no god, eternal suffering is somehow justified for those who believe it is not going to be their own problem, of course. "The adopted children" are not too concerned about those who are not "adopted" to find it challenging enough to really question it.

For someone to accept the idea that god would allow the suffering of his own creations for ever, and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever, not at any point getting to where it is enough is something for which I do not have strong enough words. Blasphemy, however, comes to mind.

[MaxVel]

Here's why: I know how to rid the universe of evil without impacting the free will of its inhabitants. Even better, I will do this the instant I'm granted the ability to do so.

The Christian God already has this ability, and refuses to use it.

This makes me morally superior to him.

---

The problem of evil can be solved instantly in this way: prevent the birth of anyone who will freely choose to do evil.

This avoids forcing people to make choices they wouldn't make themselves. Free will conundrum resolved, and all evil stopped; the universe becomes as sinless as heaven, and the need for Hell is gone.

---

How do I apply for the promotion to godhood?

Could you please start by applying your kill-the-bad-people solution retroactively to yourself? Thanks.



More seriously:

(1) It would be far superior to allow free will, create beings that are capable of morally meaningful choices (i.e. ones where their choices have real and enduring consequences), and then find a way to redeem free creatures that have chosen evil, and thus now freely choose good over evil. Surely far more wonderful to create a world where free beings can themselves choose good over evil, and where they can also choose to turn from evil to good. Hence this world, hence God is immeasurably superior to you.


(2) Your solution fails because you have in fact compromised the free will of beings in your world. Those that choose to have children, and those children are never born because Whatevermangod knows those children will choose evil, and thus prevents them from being born at all. Thus Whatevermangod interferes with the free will of his creatures. If the creatures do actually have free will, then inevitably there will be at least one case where good parents will choose to have a child, and that child will freely choose evil. And Whatevermangod can't allow that, so that child will not be born, and the free will choice of it's parents will be thwarted.

[MaxVel]

It is quite a thing for people to suggest that we should base our moral standard on someone who not only accepts but actually created a reality in which people born in a sinful world will suffer eternal punishment after having lived there perhaps even no longer than a few years, some of them actually not even being born. Even if one gets a hundred years to live in, lives a rather normal life but happens to honestly believe there is no god, eternal suffering is somehow justified for those who believe it is not going to be their own problem, of course. "The adopted children" are not too concerned about those who are not "adopted" to find it challenging enough to really question it.

For someone to accept the idea that god would allow the suffering of his own creations for ever, and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever, not at any point getting to where it is enough is something for which I do not have strong enough words. Blasphemy, however, comes to mind.

If God is the only true source of all that is really good, and free creatures freely choose to isolate themselves from God, what is God to do? Steamroll over their free will?

I think it was CS Lewis that said that the gates of hell are barred on the inside.

[Mountain Man]

Here is the real problem of evil: Why do any of us freely choose to do wrong when it is in our power to do right? How can we in anyway blame God for our own conscious, wilful, and deliberate choices?

[Mountain Man]

If God is the only true source of all that is really good, and free creatures freely choose to isolate themselves from God, what is God to do? Steamroll over their free will?

I think it was CS Lewis that said that the gates of hell are barred on the inside.

There are several theories of hell. One is that it will be an eternal existence outside of God's presence, which is exactly what the atheist claims he wants (an ultimate case of "Be careful what you ask for"). Another theory says that we will all spend eternity in God's presence; for the repentant, it will be heaven; for the unrepentant, it will be hell.

[Whateverman]

That's a non-Christian perspective, and my argument was aimed elsewhere. If we're not talking about the Christian God, then we might as well just assume He doesn't exist - which destroys my argument completely.

I'm not saying you're wrong, per se.

[Whateverman]

What is evil in your view?

My view is literally irrelevant here, because I'm using the term the way Christians use it. The same "evil" that's referred to in "the problem of evil" - the classical theological conundrum. The thing the Christian god wants less of.

[JimL]

You could argue that, but I'd say it just increases the likelihood;

But your plan isn't to just increase thelikelyhood that people would freely choose not to do evil, your plan is to create them in a way that prevents them from choosing to do evil. If they are prevented from freely choosing evil, then they must be determined to choose good. There seems to be a contradiction there between free and determined. That's the problem, among others of course, that I have always argued with christians concerning heaven. Their idea is something like yours, except that they have given me 2 arguments, one being that once in heaven they will freely choose to only do good, and the other being that god changes them, gives them a new and glorified body or some such thing in which like your idea, they are determined to do only good.

[Whateverman]

(1) It would be far superior to allow free will, create beings that are capable of morally meaningful choices (i.e. ones where their choices have real and enduring consequences), and then find a way to redeem free creatures that have chosen evil, and thus now freely choose good over evil.

This is a simple value judgement (yours) which bypasses the argument. If you feel that way, fine, but it doesn't in any way address the thread's topic.

I mean - I'm not arguing from my own opinions. I don't think thread Christian God exists at all. Here, I'm assuming He does, and that He is accurately described by Christians and the bible. My argument is predicated on the Christian world view, and I'm not giving voice to my own. I can't, because to do so stops conversation.

(2) Your solution fails because you have in fact compromised the free will of beings in your world. Those that choose to have children, and those children are never born because Whatevermangod knows those children will choose evil, and thus prevents them from being born at all. Thus Whatevermangod interferes with the free will of his creatures.

Creatures that never existed never had free will which could be interfered with.

[Whateverman]

But your plan isn't to just increase thelikelyhood that people would freely choose not to do evil, your plan is to create them in a way that prevents them from choosing to do evil. If they are prevented from freely choosing evil, then they must be determined to choose good.

I disagree. They could also be more likely to choose moral neutrality. It's unknown as to whether my process makes better people; all it does is make them less evil. Sure, I guess you could say someone who is less evil is better, but you're talking about them having been determined to be/choose good - and I don't think that's a safe assumption.

By itself, riding a bike is morally neutral. So is eating, shopping, and going to the library. It's easy to change those thing to be good or evil - like riding a bike I've just stolen from a little child, or eating something I bought at a fundraiser to purchase repairs for a historic building. My point is that just because someone is less evil doesn't automatically mean they're necessarily good.

There seems to be a contradiction there between free and determined. That's the problem, among others of course, that I have always argued with christians concerning heaven. Their idea is something like yours, except that they have given me 2 arguments, one being that once in heaven they will freely choose to only do good, and the other being that god changes them, gives them a new and glorified body or some such thing in which like your idea, they are determined to do only good.

I mean - the question of what "free will" means is incredibly thorny, primarily because few people agree. It's its own topic. Folks here want me to define various terms, and while definitions are important, the diversion effectively kills discussion of this topic. For this reason, I've kicked the semantic can down the road.

• I'm using the word "evil" in the same sense that the classic problem of evil uses it. If Epicurious can get away with not defining the term, then I should be able to, too.
• I'm using the term "free will" in the same sense that Christians use it when they say God can't force us to obey Him, because that would violate our free will. If they can get away with not defining the term, then I should be able to, too.

[37818]

You run away from the thread's topic, because you're unable to address it.

See my signature.

I can solve the problem of evil without interfering with anyone's free will. So can your God, but he refuses. This is why I'm His moral superior.

But I did address it. You did not like my answer.
Do you or do you not believe truth is absolute?
Do you or do you not believe in the laws of logic?
Do you or do you not agree that evil cannot exist without temporal finite good? Why or why not?

The supposed problem of evil as you stated it, "The challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world."

The supposed problem ignores what God has told us. And the argument is therefore ignorant of God's identity.

[Whateverman]

But I did address it. You did not like my answer.
Do you or do you not believe truth is absolute?
Do you or do you not believe in the laws of logic?
Do you or do you not agree that evil cannot exist without temporal finite good? Why or why not?

The supposed problem of evil as you stated it, "The challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world."

The supposed problem ignores what God has told us.

Christian philosophers have readily accepted that the problem is real, so you can't just wave it away without dismissing more than a thousand years of Christian thought and theology.

[JimL]

I disagree. They could also be more likely to choose moral neutrality. It's unknown as to whether my process makes better people; all it does is make them less evil. Sure, I guess you could say someone who is less evil is better, but you're talking about them having been determined to be/choose good - and I don't think that's a safe assumption.

I'm not sure that the christian perspective is that people are either good or evil, I think their idea is that they are neutral and free to choose in any particular instance. Although I know the bible, the OT, says differently which is why their god destroyed them all, except for Noah and his family of course. We won't talk about the millions of evil animals he destroyed as well of course.

By itself, riding a bike is morally neutral. So is eating, shopping, and going to the library. It's easy to change those thing to be good or evil - like riding a bike I've just stolen from a little child, or eating something I bought at a fundraiser to purchase repairs for a historic building. My point is that just because someone is less evil doesn't automatically mean they're necessarily good.

Okay, so I guess you're going by the OT perspective that what god created, man, was purely evil with a will which desired nothing but evil. We do know that not to be the case though. But if that's what you're going by then the task would be to change there will to do only evil, to a will to do only good. But that would be to determine their will, to change it from desiring only evil to desiring only good. No?

I mean - the question of what "free will" means is incredibly thorny, primarily because few people agree. It's its own topic. Folks here want me to define various terms, and while definitions are important, the diversion effectively kills discussion of this topic. For this reason, I've kicked the semantic can down the road.

Yeah, I get that.

• I'm using the word "evil" in the same sense that the classic problem of evil uses it. If Epicurious can get away with not defining the term, then I should be able to, too.

• Hmm, not sure what the classic definition of evil is. could you define it for me?
  
  

• I'm using the term "free will" in the same sense that Christians use it when they say God can't force us to obey Him, because that would violate our free will. If they can get away with not defining the term, then I should be able to, too.