A Just God Cannot Exist

ToothyMaw

The following post is building off of an argument I had with Bartricks a while ago. It is about the unjust God issue that came up. Here are a couple definitions to start:

Justness: the state of receiving that which you deserve because of your behavior according to some idea of what is morally prudent.

Injustice: a lack of justness.

An unjust (but not necessarily a perfectly unjust) God requires both the existence of justness and the potential for injustice in order to create a somewhat or mostly unjust world; furthermore, all of the arguments that hold for the existence of a just God hold for an unjust one because they require merely those same two elements. However, a perfectly just God wouldn’t allow any actual injustice, because injustice doesn’t need to exist to allow justness to exist; every potentially unjust outcome must be resolved in the same way (justly) for God to be perfectly just.

This is because the existence of unjustness requires merely that a just outcome is possible, and where there is a just outcome available that just outcome must be achieved for God to be perfectly just.

Then we know that God must be at least somewhat unjust, given that we all know that injustice exists, and it is as tangible as any other meta-ethical or normative religious claim, if not more: almost everyone agrees that a murderer deserves punishment, or that good people especially don’t deserve poor treatment at the hands of illegitimate authority.

My formal argument is as such:

a. If God exists, they are at least unjust, and have the potential to effect just outcomes if such just outcomes exist.
b. Just outcomes exist.
c. God must always effect just outcomes to be perfectly just.
d. God does not always effect just outcomes.
e. Therefore, God is merely unjust.

You could make the argument that God just exposes us to a risk of danger, illness or death that he doesn’t have control over to either be efficient, or to circuitously dissolve responsibility for the injustices inflicted on us like Bartricks did.

However, even if he gives up his omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence with respect to the situations of those exposed to a risk of danger, he could just return all of that stuff and solve all of the injustices without any issues (a la Bartricks: God, if omnipotent, is not necessarily omnipotent, and can always become omnipotent again after taking it away from themselves because they can make two contradictory things true or just change their own nature at will - or they aren’t omnipotent)

PhilosophyRunner

I am not religious. But to play devils advocate (in a post about God!), if you take God to be omniscient then God has a better understanding of what is just than you do (as your knowledge is not perfect, God's is). And as such it make no sense for you to judge God's actions as unjust, this is merely your limited human mind not being able to comprehend true Godly justness.

I obviously do not subscribe to that. But it is one of the fundamental problems I see in a religious framework where God is seen to have far superior knowledge and understanding than we do - it results in the conclusion that the most sensible thing is to simply follow what God teaches, in the way the most sensible thing for a 3 year old child to do is to simply follow their more intellectually capable parents, even if the 3 year old thinks they are wrong. The 3 year old may think his parents are unjust, but that is probably because the 3 year old's understanding of justness is lacking compared to their parents.

Benj96

if you take God to be omniscient then God has a better understanding of what is just than you do (as your knowledge is not perfect, God's is). And as such it make no sense for you to judge God's actions as unjust, this is merely your limited human mind not being able to comprehend true Godly justness. — PhilosophyRunner

If god is omniscient then he/she would be the ultimate truth of all things no? Because all knowledge (omniscience) pertains to what is true - what is "fact" and what is not (lies/delusions). And as far as I know people can tell the truth or lie. So they can know more or less about god if they so choose?

PhilosophyRunner

↪Benj96

I am well outside my comfort zone on religious philosophy and I am not even arguing for my own view. But I will give it my best shot.

If god is omniscient then he/she would be the ultimate truth. And by extension what God thinks is just, is truly just. So it makes no sense for me to suggest that God is unjust.

If I find God to be unjust by my understanding of justness - this means my understanding of what is just and God's understanding of what is just differ. As God cannot be wrong in his understanding of anything, it is my understanding of justness that is wrong.

ToothyMaw

to play devils advocate (in a post about God!), if you take God to be omniscient then God has a better understanding of what is just than you do (as your knowledge is not perfect, God's is). And as such it make no sense for you to judge God's actions as unjust, this is merely your limited human mind not being able to comprehend true Godly justness. — PhilosophyRunner

Then we have to accept that God is an insane asshole that actually believes that serial rapists should not be punished except when caught? Are we allowed to have any conception of justice? Or should we allow ourselves to be buffeted by the injustices we perceive to be happening all around us and merely whisper to ourselves that it's all part of God's plan?

If I find God to be unjust by my understanding of justness - this means my understanding of what is just and God's understanding of what is just differ. As God cannot be wrong in his understanding of anything, it is my understanding of justness that is wrong. — PhilosophyRunner

Then everything ethical and just is absolutely arbitrary. Or we don't need God. Read this for clarification.

Agent Smith

1. If God is just then there should be no injustice
2. There is injustice
Ergo,
3. God is not just [1, 2, MT]

:up:

choose — Benj96

:cool:

PhilosophyRunner

Then we have to accept that God is an insane asshole that actually believes that serial rapists should not be punished except when caught? — ToothyMaw

In that framework, we would have to assume that your and my understanding of who is an asshole is wrong compared to God's superior omniscient understanding of who is an asshole.

Then everything ethical and just is absolutely arbitrary. Or we don't need God. Read this for clarification.

Or that everything ethical or just is what god understands as ethical and just, regardless of whether you or I understand it as ethical or just. Our understanding is never superior to an omniscient God's understanding (by the very definition of omniscient).

Your opening post would only work for a non-omnipotent, non-oniscient God.

But from my point of view, this is all moot as I see no reason to believe an omniscient God in the first place. Or any God for that matter.

ToothyMaw

↪Agent Smith

Then I'm not alone here.

In that frame work, we would have to assume that your understanding of who is an asshole is wrong compared to God's superior understanding of who is an asshole. — PhilosophyRunner

Not really, unless God were threatening me with death, or an eternity of damnation for defying him.

Or that everything ethical or just is what god understands as ethical and just, regardless of whether humanity understands it as ethical or just. — PhilosophyRunner

It would be arbitrary if God said what is ethical is ethical merely because he says so. If what is ethical is just understood to be ethical by God we have no need for God.

But from my point of view, this is all moot as I see no reason to believe an omniscient God in the first place. — PhilosophyRunner

Agreed. But this is directed at theists who have a sense of fairness that is still divorced at least a little from their belief in God.

Agent Smith

Then I'm not alone here. — ToothyMaw

I trimmed down your argument to a bite-sized chunk of awesome wisdom, yours of course.

That said expect constructive and destructive criticism from better & more experienced thinkers. Injustice is ...

Benj96

1. If God is just then there should be no injustice
2. There is injustice
Ergo,
3. God is not just [1, 2, MT] — Agent Smith

Are we referring to God as a person here or god as the universe?
Because god as a person could be just. They have free will to make good or bad decisions. God as the universe cannot be just as the universe is everything: thus including both justices and injustices as a whole.

PhilosophyRunner

Not really, unless God were threatening me with death, or an eternity of damnation for defying him. — ToothyMaw

What I am saying is that if you are starting off with an omniscient God (as you did mention in your OP), then by the very attribute you ascribed to God, he has a superior understanding of what is just than you. In fact, by the very attribute you ascribe to God, he cannot be wrong in what he finds just.

The issue, as far as i can see, is the attribution of omniscience and omnipotence to God.

Agent Smith

Are we referring to God as a person here or god as the universe?
Because god as a person could be just. They have free will to make good or bad decisions. God as the universe cannot be just as the universe is everything: thus including both justices and injustices as a whole. — Benj96

@ToothyMaw $\uparrow$ See?

Benj96

It would be arbitrary if God said what is ethical is ethical merely because he says so. — ToothyMaw

Exactly. He or she would have to demonstrate it instead of just saying so/dictating. They would have to show everyone what it means to be ethical (good) or unethical (bad) by utilising themselves (the truth - if they are indeed omniscient).

ToothyMaw

Are we referring to God as a person here or god as the universe?
Because god as a person could be just. They have free will to make good or bad decisions. God as the universe cannot be just as the universe is everything: thus including both justices and injustices as a whole. — Benj96

God is not limited to being the universe according to any theist, at least as far as I know. Perhaps God is omnipresent, but he exists as an entity with free will according to most - he is just everywhere.

He can do anything or be anything and can even make two contradictory things true (square-circle). He can exist as an entity yet permeate every corner of the universe simultaneously if he so desires. The unfettered kind of God that modern theologians talk about has basically unlimited power, but that doesn't mean that God can't act unjustly.

ToothyMaw

Exactly. He or she would have to demonstrate it instead of just saying so/dictating. They would have to show everyone what it means to be ethical (good) or unethical (bad) by utilising themselves (the truth - if they are indeed omniscient). — Benj96

If God desires to even be ethical, that is.

Benj96

If God desires to even be ethical, that is. — ToothyMaw

Precisely. God could choose of their own free will to spread the truth (reveal themselves and their omniscience) and extinguish the power of deceit/lies - in otherwords be benevolent/ethical.

OR

They could withold the truth (tell know one who they really are) - and permit deceit and lying to run rampant.. Or in otherwords be malevolent / unethical.

I think no one good wants the second type of God to exist.

ToothyMaw

I think no one good wants the second type of God to exist. — Benj96

Indeed. I just really doubt that a good God exists.

ToothyMaw

What I am saying is that if you are starting off with an omniscient God (as you did mention in your OP), then by the very attribute you ascribed to God, God has a superior understanding of what is just than you. — PhilosophyRunner

Yes, but divine command theory is a bitter pill to swallow. So much so that many theists won't even entertain its implications.

Benj96

Indeed. I just really doubt that a good God exists — ToothyMaw

That's a terrible shame. I do agree that probably most people at this stage in time would have to "see it to believe it" rather than blindly trust that such a good god exists.

So if there is such a good God and they are able to be a person for a limited time and speak the truth now would be a good time for them to reveal themselves

ToothyMaw

So if there is such a good God and they are able to be a person for a limited time and speak the truth now would be a good time for them to reveal themselves — Benj96

What an odd thing to say. I doubt God would suddenly intervene now of all times.

That's a terrible shame. I do agree that probably most people at this stage in time would have to "see it to believe it" rather than blindly trust that such a good god exists. — Benj96

Maybe it's time to give up on notions of being guided by some benevolent, all-powerful, cosmic father-figure? I honestly think we are on our own.

Benj96

What an odd thing to say. I doubt God would suddenly intervene now of all times. — ToothyMaw

It is an odd thing to say yeah you're right haha. Almost sounds like a prayer. If god is truly good I suppose they would only intervene when the truly bad is already here. Yikes.

Benj96

Maybe it's time to give up on notions of being guided by some benevolent, all-powerful, cosmic father-figure? I honestly think we are on our own. — ToothyMaw

I dunno. I don't like the idea of giving up hope. Hope for a better future is so important to our survival. I think it's important to stay hopeful its sometimes all we have. We must be strong otherwise we lose hope and get depressed.

PhilosophyRunner

↪ToothyMaw

You are right.

As it is, this is all an academic discussion for me, so I can afford to ignore the bitterness of the pill. However if I did believe in an omniscient God, perhaps the bitterness would be visceral and I would avoid the arguments I was making. Funny that.

Benj96

However if I did believe in an omniscient God, perhaps the bitterness would be palatable and I would avoid the arguments I was making. Funny that. — PhilosophyRunner

Wouldn't it make sense then to explore thoroughly all the possible reasons why such a god could indeed exist? If it would ameliorate the bitterness of the pill and make it more palatable? Sounds like a worthwhile pursuit even on just the hope that it may better things. Because if it were the case that there was an a omniscient and benevolent god it would be a great revelation for sure. And if not then well at least you tried and could feel more settled in knowing you explored all avenues to find out if such a truth existed

PhilosophyRunner

↪Benj96

It makes sense to explore scenarios, sure. What I have explored has not led to any reason to believe in a God, but who knows if I may one day find something.

Benj96

It makes sense to explore scenarios, sure. What I have explored has not led to any reason to believe in a God, but who knows if I may one day find something — PhilosophyRunner

Maybe you will. :) maybe you won't. I guess we will see won't we, and I admire the effort. A truth seeker to the true nature of things is always a brave and curious person

Tom Storm

a. If God exists, they are at least unjust, and have the potential to effect just outcomes if such just outcomes exist.
b. Just outcomes exist.
c. God must always effect just outcomes to be perfectly just.
d. God does not always effect just outcomes.
e. Therefore, God is merely unjust. — ToothyMaw

a - If god exists we seem to have no demonstrable way of knowing what their nature is, or if god is even present in the physical world.

I guess I would ask, what exactly is the correlation between our world and the reality (or not) of a deity?

ToothyMaw

a - If god exists we seem to have no demonstrable way of knowing what their nature is, or if god is even present in the physical world.

I guess I would ask, what exactly is the correlation between our world and the reality (or not) of a deity? — Tom Storm

My point is that if one argues that God exists - and since all of the arguments that apply for the existence of any type of God apply for an unjust god - God must be unjust according to any plausible standard compatible with any human understanding of justness. My arguments for an unjust God do not affect god's nature, but rather are an artifact of human reality. So, it is a relative thing, ultimately.

Tom Storm

↪ToothyMaw

I'm not certain about that. I keep coming back to this -

I guess I would ask, what exactly is the correlation between our world and the reality (or not) of a deity? — Tom Storm

I would say a more apropos syllogism might look more like this.

a) It is unwise to reach conclusions in the absence of good evidence.
b) We have no good evidence about the nature of any god/s.
c) Therefore we can make no claims about god/s as being just or unjust.

Or

If God exists he may be omniscient and therefore almost incomprehensible to human understanding.
Therefore we cannot ascribe to god/s human standards and expectations around morality.

The problem for me is that these kinds of formulations only really work if God is a person - some old guy in the sky, with a personality and an almost human approach and is subject to a literalist/fundamentalist interpretation.

ToothyMaw

b) We have no good evidence about the nature of any god/s. — Tom Storm

We have plenty of evidence, however, that God does not give a flying fuck about people getting what they deserve, at least as we understand it. The claim that God may have some greater understanding of justice in which child rapists don't deserve to be punished is on par with the claim, in terms of arrogance, that everything is going according to some celestial plan laid out just for us - beings who are as insignificant as ants compared to God.

a) It is unwise to reach conclusions in the absence of good evidence. — Tom Storm

I agree.

c) Therefore we can make no claims about god/s as being just or unjust. — Tom Storm

But it seems to me that we can because the world is not perfectly just - which it would have to be for God to be just. I am defining justness as people getting what they deserve - and they largely don't - and you are circumventing that definition and making the claim that God is so incomprehensible that we can make no claims about his nature. You need to address my definition, because, according to that, we can indeed declare him to be unjust.

ToothyMaw

The problem for me is that these kinds of formulations only really work if God is a person - some old guy in the sky, with a personality and an almost human approach and is subject to a literalist/fundamentalist interpretation. — Tom Storm

But largely that is the God people actually argue for, not some deistic/agnostic formulation, and, thus, that is what I am addressing.

A Just God Cannot Exist

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions