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. — ToothyMaw

Mainly just for the kinds of anthropomorphic, cartoon gods of evangelicals.

I'm not sure how you have determined god's state of mind to conclude it doesn't give a fuck. :smile:

You need to address my definition, because, according to that, we can indeed declare him to be unjust. — ToothyMaw

I get that, but I think this narrows the scope and nature of both god and evil. That's all I am saying. The world may be much vaster than this small fence around matters moral and metaphysical would suggest.

And please note on the basis of literalist interpretations I have frequently called Yahweh a cunt. But this is kind of a separate matter. :wink:

Mainly just for the kinds of anthropomorphic, cartoon gods of evangelicals.

I'm not sure how you have determined god's state of mind to conclude it doesn't give a fuck. :smile: — Tom Storm

If God cared, you don't think they would do something? Would God pussyfoot around so that we can have arguments like these? I think not. If God doesn't care, God doesn't care, no matter how inscrutable or unfathomable their nature is. If they wanted to enact justice, they could - and they don't. So, they must have some really great reason for allowing injustice that none of us can think of.

I get that, but I think this narrows the scope and nature of both god and evil. That's all I am saying. The world may be much vaster than this small fence around matters moral and metaphysical would suggest. — Tom Storm

If you knew that there is no way to make a perpetual motion machine that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics regardless of how you rigged it up, would you claim that an extraordinarily complex one - verging on unfathomably complex, even - might actually have some chance at achieving perpetual motion? Or would you hold to the principles of thermodynamics as humans understand them?

If God cared, you don't think they would do something? Would God pussyfoot around so that we can have arguments like these? I think not. — ToothyMaw

You've probably missed the argument about the nature of god then. You're approaching this in human terms and thinking of god as a kind of very special human, with the same frame of reference. But we are simply not in a position to know what a god thinks or can do or can see. And we have yet to demonstrate what god's relationship to the material world is apart from, presumably, a role in creation. But it's far from clear. The only god you can pin immoral behavior or negligence on is the version I named earlier. And this is the standard atheist trope. And believe me, I've used it myself in the past even if it has a limited range.

You've probably missed the argument about the nature of god then. You're approaching this in human terms and thinking of god as a kind of very special human, with the same frame of reference. — Tom Storm

No. I haven't. God could be that unfathomably complex machine yet still be a being that cares not for enacting justice at all. And that makes him unjust. You are dodging the argument, hiding behind some idea of God that, ironically, has more in common with the fundamentalist version of God than you seem to understand.

No. I haven't. God could be that unfathomably complex machine yet still be a being that cares not for enacting justice at all. — ToothyMaw

Just in saying that demonstrates to me you don't understand the argument.

Do you want to keep going in circles or have we reached the end for now?

Just in saying that demonstrates to me you don't understand the argument.

Do you want to keep going in circles or have we reached the end for now? — Tom Storm

Are you even trying to understand what I am saying?

Why does God potentially being totally incomprehensible mean that he isn't responsible for the injustices we suffer? I'm saying that relative to any human idea of justness God is not just. How is that wrong?

Btw - I never claimed that God couldn't have special reasons only they have knowledge of for allowing injustices. But I fail to see any, and it wouldn't change the fact that they allow injustices. Having a special reason for killing someone doesn't negate the fact that you killed someone, for instance - it just might be justified somehow.

Are you even trying to understand what I am saying? — ToothyMaw

Is this an insult? We are exploring an argument, not trying to slight each other, right?

We disagree (partly) in a discussion forum - nothing wrong with that, right?

I'll concede one thing here - you're right to say God may not be just by a human understanding of what is just. My problem is not this part of the argument, rather the implication that god is in some way a moral monster or 'choosing not to intervene'. From the perspective of omniscience what humans understand as injustice might look to be something utterly different. God may not consider intervention to be appropriate.

I offer this as a tentative response to your syllogism and version of god, not as a defense of theism. I am an atheist. Have we taken up too much time on this?

Have we taken up too much time on this? — Tom Storm

Definitely not, I thought we actually have been having a good conversation.

Is this an insult? We are exploring an argument, not trying to slight each other, right?

We disagree (partly) in a discussion forum - nothing wrong with that, right? — Tom Storm

I didn't intend it as an insult, sorry if it came across that way.

I'll concede one thing here - you're right to say God may not be just by a human understanding of what is just. — Tom Storm

No, he definitely isn't. Not "maybe". As soon as God is invoked many people seem to suspend any sort of decent reasoning on moral matters - including on what is just. They just claim that either God's plan is incomprehensible or that he has special reasons for suspending justice (the guilty will be judged in the afterlife, the existence of original sin, etc.).

My problem is not this part of the argument, rather the implication that god is in some way a moral monster or 'choosing not to intervene'. — Tom Storm

I didn't claim him to be a moral monster, but it definitely looks like he is a moral monster from where I'm sitting.

From the perspective of omniscience what humans understand as injustice might look to be something utterly different. God may not consider intervention to be appropriate. — Tom Storm

Then we should stop drawing any sort of positive wisdom or assurance from any personal ideas of what God is too, it seems to me - especially given that the arguments for a just God are weaker than those for an unjust God merely by virtue of the fact that human injustices are allowed.

Cool and thanks. I've enjoyed this too.

They just claim that either God's plan is incomprehensible or that he has special reasons for suspending justice (the guilty will be judged in the afterlife, the existence of original sin, etc.). — ToothyMaw

I hear you, but I have some sympathy for this argument. Not the 'special' 'afterlife', 'sin' part of it, but the frame of reference part. See below as I respond to this earlier point of yours.

Why does God potentially being totally incomprehensible mean that he isn't responsible for the injustices we suffer? I'm saying that relative to any human idea of justness God is not just. How is that wrong? — ToothyMaw

It's potentially wrong because what we see as injustices, god might see (from the perspective of omniscience) as something else entirely. This is not to suggest a cold indifference to our plight, but a radically different interpretive framework. Our perspective obviously is, 'we suffer, do something, God!' I get that. But god does not necessarily share our world or human experiences/values.

Then we should stop drawing any sort of positive wisdom or assurance from any personal ideas of what God is too — ToothyMaw

Indeed. God can also be understood as a mystery - unfathomable and ineffable. People often see this as a cop out and an evasion and it can be that. But maybe not. Hence the apophatic tradition in theology.

We have free will and it is our responsibility to create just outcomes in society.
We will be judged by God commensurate with the extent to which each of us has done that.
Expecting God to do everything for us so we needn't do anything is lumping the means by which we show God who we are onto God's lap, which would be pointless because God created creation to see how we react to life.

I wonder what the intelligence gap is between humans and gods? If it's huge enough, our idea of justice maybe hopelessly far behind gods', making any analysis pointless.

Si comprehendis non est Deus. — St. Augustine

. 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

You're missing some premises to make this valid.

Substitute "Ghandi" in for "God" and you'll see why.

You're going to have to define God in your syllogism as that which eliminates the possibility of injustice. I'm not sure that is a generally accepted notion of God. Most religions accept that there is injustice.

I see. God has been from a certain point in history portrayed as this benevolent figure that oversees/maintains the moral dimension.

cartoon gods — Tom Storm

:cool:

You're going to have to define God in your syllogism as that which eliminates the possibility of injustice. I'm not sure that is a generally accepted notion of God. Most religions accept that there is injustice. — Hanover

Most religions deal with injustice by suspending typical moral reasoning, something I am speaking out against doing in this post. We should treat God the way we would treat anyone with a significant amount of power over others, even if, as some have argued, he is almost totally ineffable. Furthermore, even if one wants to postulate that God exists, he could be unjust as easily as just - even according to some standard only he can recognize. That cuts against the popular idea of God, given we strip away the bullshit.

I suppose if people are cool with God not caring about justice my argument would do little to persuade anyone to think critically about God or their religion.

We have free will and it is our responsibility to create just outcomes in society. — Hallucinogen

Would you say that adults should allow their children to suffer injustices at each other's hands merely so they can be judged by adults? That we should allow children to suffer so we can test them?

What if the people responsible for enacting justness refuse to enact justice correctly? Because it seems to me humanity is mostly incapable of enacting justness consistently, otherwise war criminals like George W. Bush would be in prison. Even though he is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and the destruction of a country he gets to retire to his ranch and paint self-portraits. Same goes for Putin and every other authoritarian asshole never held responsible throughout history.

And what about good people that get cancer? How are we supposed to enact justness there? If we can't enact justness, then shouldn't God protect good people from injustices we cannot rectify if he is even remotely just?

Expecting God to do everything for us so we needn't do anything is lumping the means by which we show God who we are onto God's lap, which would be pointless because God created creation to see how we react to life. — Hallucinogen

Then God really half-assed creation. We could demonstrate our worth, compassion, bravery, ingenuity etc. in a world with significantly less suffering.

Don't get me wrong - suffering and hardship builds character, but not in gratuitous amounts.

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

Could god not be both a person and the universe simultaneously? I mean we are not separate from the universe as a system. The human body is an "open system" of constant exchange with the environment - of energy and matter. If god is omnipotent and omnipresent then I suspect he/she/it could be both human and inhuman.

And if so what might we say of their justness/gods morality. Well as a person god could be just by doing right by others. But sadly in this duality god as the universe is ambivalent - because the system contains both good and evil, both chaos/destruction and order/creation - you cannot have justice and good without its opposite, and you cannot have free will either if only one or the other existed in isolation.

In this way... God as the universe would be flawed but god as a person would be doing their best to do good for others. To spread the truth.

Could god not be both a person and the universe simultaneously? — Benj96

Yes. God, if he exists the way theologians formulate, could be anything at all, and could even just be a human with no powers if he so desired, and could just make himself God again whenever.

you cannot have justice and good without its opposite — Benj96

The potential for injustice and good is all that must exist for justness and good to exist. There doesn't actually have to be any real evil for good to exist, or any injustice for justice to exist, as per my definition - everyone must just get what they deserve.

But sadly in this duality god as the universe is ambivalent - because the system contains both good and evil, both chaos/destruction and order/creation - you cannot have justice and good without its opposite, and you cannot have free will either if only one or the other existed in isolation. — Benj96

But God could just give himself free will even if he existed as the universe and not a person. He could make any two contradictory things possible at the same time if he so desires. You might say then that God could just make human suffering and injustice just. But that makes little sense from a human perspective, because we humans still have a stubborn intuition about what constitutes justness that exists apart from God, and I can say that I believe murderers should be punished with no consequences.

That would mean that either God is allowing us to contradict his idea of justness with our free will or arranged the universe in such a way as to guarantee we would defy him on this one.

He could make any two contradictory things possible at the same time if he so desires. — ToothyMaw

The issue I have with any arguments that attribute these kind for characteristics to God, is that those very characteristics then render moot any following arrangement you or I may give.

I don't think you can make a logical argument against a being that can make two contradictory things possible at the same time, as such a being would be able to invalidate the most perfect piece of human logic.

This is the problem with any being who we attribute as having the omnis or the above. They are superior even to logic. If I start with a being who can make the impossible (by human understanding) happen, it is meaningless to apply human logic to them.

could even just be a human with no powers if he so desired, and could just make himself God again whenever. — ToothyMaw

Sounds sort of fun. To live powerless for a while and allow others have the power and then resume control when needed - for example when there is too much abuse of his/her power and to restore the natural balance of things

everyone must just get what they deserve. — ToothyMaw

Doesnt everyone deserve a chance to change their ways though? Doesn't everyone no matter how much hurt they caused deserve the free will to start anew and repair the damage they did? I think that is just. Because if we lock up those that hurt us and punish them because they punished us it doesn't makes us any better than them. An eye for an eye doesn't work... Two wrongs don't make a right. We must rise above and forgive because without forgiveness we are imprisoned by what others believe about us. And that is a very sad prospect.

Sounds sort of fun. To live powerless for a while and allow others have the power and then resume control when needed - for example when there is too much abuse of his/her power and to restore the natural balance of things — Benj96

But in this scenario, God is not really powerless, is he? For he has the power to take back his all encompassing powers, otherwise he will be stuck forevermore as a mere human.

To use an analogy - if Bill Gates went to live on the streets in a shanty town in Ghana, but still had the ability to resume his old wealth any time he wanted to, then he would not really be poor would he? He would get first hand experience of poverty for a while, but it would not be the same as real poverty as he can exit the situation any time he chooses - something the real poor in that shanty town in Ghana would not be able to do. It would be a form of playing poor for a while, rather than real poverty.

Of course my argument does not apply to a God who has the omni powers, and who can make contradictory things happen at the same time. I don't think I can formulate any argument that applies to such a God.

I don't think you can make a logical argument against an entity that can make two contradictory thing possible at the same time, as such a being would be able to invalidate the most perfect piece of human logic. — PhilosophyRunner

I actually made this argument against Bartricks. But we have no reason to think God has made any important logical statements contradictory. Although, yes, we cannot know for certain unless the intersection of the discussed logical statements is verifiable somehow.

For instance, if we can verify the claim that donkeys are small separately from the claim that they are gray to come to the conclusion that they are indeed both small and gray, then we know that the statements "donkeys are small", and "donkeys are gray" are non-contradictory.

That might seem pretty basic, but it demonstrates that we have a means of knowing if God has made two logical statements contradictory.

If we are talking about him making, for instance, certain rules of logic false or contradictory with other rules or what have you, then he could just explode logic. But logic works still for describing reality, so it appears he has not done so. Thus, he is still subject to logical arguments, even if they are somehow external to him through his own doing.

For instance, if we can verify the claim that donkeys are small separately from the claim that they are gray to come to the conclusion that they are indeed both small and gray, then we know that the statements "donkeys are small", and "donkeys are gray" are non-contradictory.

That might seem pretty basic, but it demonstrates that we have a means of knowing if God has made two logical statements contradictory. — ToothyMaw

But if we take that God can make contradictory things happen,

Then that we see "donkeys are grey" and "donkeys are small" can both happen at the same time, does not mean they are non-contradictory. I.e if it is possible that contradictory things can happen, then the very basis of logic that we use everyday would be suspect.

We assume it is impossible for contradictory things to happen, and that assumption is also inbuilt in your above logic about donkeys. You are assuming that if "donkeys are small" and "donkeys are gray" are contradictory, then "small grey donkeys" would not happen. But this assumption does not apply to a God who can make contradictory things happen.

I suppose if people are cool with God not caring about justice my argument would do little to persuade anyone to think critically about God or their religion. — ToothyMaw

I didn't say God didn't care about justice. I said that few religions solve the theodicy problem by just outright denial of the existence of evil.
https://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/theodicy_brief_overview.htm#:~:text=A%20theodicy%20is%20an%20attempt,a%20contingent%20relationship%20to%20God.

Then that we see donkeys are grey and donkeys are small can both happen at the same time, does not mean they are non-contradictory. I.e if a being exists that can make contradictory things happen, then the very basis of logic that we use everyday, would be suspect. — PhilosophyRunner

If the logic didn't work, we wouldn't be able to combine the separate statements that donkeys are both small and gray to describe a donkey. The logic is just as necessary to the donkey example as the fact that they are indeed observably small and gray. If God had changed the rules of logic in such a way as to make the combined statement about donkeys false, we would not be able to use the donkey logic to come to any conclusions about donkeys or other things at all. But we can - merely with the premises that donkeys are small and gray.

If I'm wrong on this one, someone who knows more about logic correct me, please.

If the logic didn't work, we wouldn't be able to combine the separate statements that donkeys are both small and gray to describe a donkey. The logic is just as necessary to the donkey example as the fact that they are indeed observably small and gray. If God had changed the rules of logic in such a way as to make the combined statement about donkeys false, we would not be able to use the donkey logic to come to any conclusions about donkeys or other things at all. But we can - merely with the premises that donkeys are small and gray.

If I'm wrong on this one, someone who knows more about logic correct me, please. — ToothyMaw

It would just mean that our logic system is faulty. What we use as a logical system, is a flawed system.

I don't think our current logic system can survive if it is possible for contradictory things to happen. But I too am happy to be corrected by someone with a better understanding of logic.

I'm saying that we wouldn't be able to use the donkey logic at all, but we reliably can, and that would indicate that our logic is not faulty. If the logic is faulty then why would one be able to use that logic to come to correct conclusions? And if you are saying faulty logic would have no effect on our ability to form arguments then why would there be an issue for the arguments applied to God?