God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[Statler Waldorf]

To very slightly paraphrase a recently-seen retort:
"How is it not? Merely asserting that does not make it so."

I elaborated later on in my post because you repeated that objection to the point of ad nauseam.

My rights don't "come" from anywhere. They are standards groups of people agree to recognize.

Recognizing something is not the same as creating it, so are your rights eternal or were they created? If God refuses to recognize your rights do you still have any?

Who says he has that right? I have no say in it.

Of course you do not. Does Luke Skywalker have any say against George Lucas? Obviously not.

I don't have the power to disagree. And that's precisely the point. Whatever stupid and false justification you come up with, God's status as creator means nothing on its own.

Sure you have the ability to disagree; it just does not mean anything because you are the creature not the creator.

If I create an artificial heart, do I have the right to destroy it after it is installed in someone else's body?

No because that would also destroy something you did not create, the person. If you created an artificial heart that was not inside anyone yes you’d have the right to destroy it.

If I create a skyscraper, do I have the right to blow it up?

As long as this did not lead to the destruction of something you did not create such as other people.

Why did George Lucas and only George Lucas have the right to kill Darth Vader’s character?

Those who want heavenly rewards and/or avoid eternal punishment (but it's totally not about power!!), or those who were brought up to do so, follow Christ.

That’s not the Christian’s position at all so that’s just the straw man fallacy.

Yeah, except when I'm bored and on Netflix, I see about as many dead walking as I see gods existing.

Huh?

I personally do not think any of these things is morally right.

Why not? If might makes right (as you claim it does) you’d logically have to think those things are morally right.

All of these things are right in your mythical Christian universe, as long as God is the one doing them.

God was not the one doing any of those things so this is irrelevant.

All of these things are acts that are entirely unacceptable to anybody, regardless of any qualifications, in a universe alleged to contain objective and inviolable moral standards.

Acts that are entirely unacceptable to anybody? Except the Nazis, rapists, and OJ Simpson right? Why are their moral standards inferior to yours?

I guess you get an exception if you make the rules, just like in a totalitarian regime.

When you understand the reason why those acts are wrong you’ll understand why it’s not wrong for God to destroy us (God never rapes anyone though).

A statement which is obviously inviting a response in the same respect as a question, Semantic Waldorf.

Forgive me; I lost the ability to read minds at birth apparently.

I conflate nothing.

Apparently you do.

You insist that I have no rights of any kind simply because I am a created object.

You have rights but the rights you have were given to you by your creator and pertain to how other creatures ought to treat you.

You have so far justified this by referring to the relationship between creators and inanimate objects, or creators and fictional characters, justifying atrocities by dehumanizing everybody and insisting that it's okay to do these things as long as the proper relationship exists.

You’re committing the red herring fallacy, whether it’s Mickey Mouse and Walt Disney or Nike and Bill Bowerman this creator/created distinction is very real and something we all have an inherent understanding of.

Could I write a novel where I kill Luke Skywalker the Jedi Knight without permission? Why or why not?

You're insisting that God does not justify himself by his power, yet you cite God's power of creation as the justification for everything he does. A pre-schooler could spot the logical contradiction here.

No, I am saying the might does not necessarily make right, there is more required than that.

Since you have done nothing but retort with opinions of your own, we're quite on even ground here.

Hardly. I have reduced your objections to absurdity by demonstrating that you do not even accept the logical conclusions of your own espoused position. My opinion has nothing to do with that.

God and I have two different ideas of justice.

Well he is infallible and you are fallible so who do you think is wrong?

Since it is not his power, what objectively-observable phenomena justifies the idea that his is superior to mine?

He created all things, you did not. That’s pretty simple really.

Yes. Asking to objectively prove injustice is nonsensical and invalid. There is no such thing as an objective standard of justice.

If that were true then the entire premise of your OP is nonsensical because you’d have no meaningful standard to measure injustice by. Let’s think about this, so If God exists your OP is nonsensical because He’d be the standard of justice and if He does not exist then your OP is still nonsensical because the term “injustice” would be rendered meaningless. What a glorious waste of everyone’s time!

Since you seem to think it is possible to objectively prove justice, it's not a 'sin' to ask you to justify your position by objectively proving that he is just. If you can't do it, it's only because it can't be done.

It is possible to objectively prove something is just by using our ultimate and infallible standard of justice. We can question whether laws are constitutional but it’s nonsensical to question whether the US Constitution itself is constitutional or not. Your thread is trying to do the same as the latter.

Is it really a red herring?

Yes. It’s a textbook example of one.

I'm not asking you specifically to prove his existence here. I'm just pointing out that you can't prove the foundation of your assertions, and yet you make those assertions as if they are obviously and factually true.

My assertions are analytically true because of how we define God so whether or not I can prove His existence is neither here nor there.

Dodge, dodge, dodge. Nike is not a human being and dismantling a company is not the equivalent of killing a human being. Can you try proving your point without comparing human beings to inanimate objects?

This is the red herring fallacy again, why would human beings be any different than anything else created? According to your espoused view of reality we’re all made of the same matter as inanimate objects. Human dignity and exceptionalism only exists if God exists.

This is what you are doing…

A: “Animals cannot play fetch…”

B: “My dog plays fetch…”

A: “Well he’s a Golden Retriever…”

B: “Huh?’

It doesn't matter what meaningless justification you come up with. Had God told Hitler to massacre Jews in death camps, you would believe it was not just okay, but a moral imperative.

I can logically conclude that what the Nazis did was morally wrong because it violates God’s first commandment but you on the other hand have to conclude that it was morally justified because they were mightier than the Jews and they did not recognize the Jews as having any rights (which according to you is how rights are determined).

I do not personally believe that might justifies anything at all.

Why not?

But, there is nothing objective which makes my morals (or anyone else's) objectively superior, or inferior, to such a person's.

Obviously this violates the law of non-contradiction because an act could be good and not good at the same time and in the same sense. Atheism necessarily leads to such illogical outcomes.

Unlike you, I don't pretend that my morals are the standard by which all should be judged.

Are you saying it is morally wrong to do so?

It really boils down to what defines morals and justice. You define your god's morals and justice as being based solely upon his whims, where the opinions of his creations mean nothing.

You have already conceded that your view of morality and justice have no bearing on anyone else’s so you are actually agreeing with me. Whether or not you believe God is immoral or unjust means nothing because according to you it’s no more superior to the person’s view that God is just and moral. It’s the classic heads I win tails you lose scenario. Even if your definition of morality were accurate then God would not be unjust or immoral and if my definition of morality is accurate God is not unjust or immoral so therefore we can both agree that God is not unjust or immoral. I rest my case.

One hypothetical precept of my moral code would be that, if I had the power and ability to create a being with human-level sentience, that would not give me the right to destroy it. Obviously, I have the right to destroy, for instance, the text of this post, as it is my creation. Unlike you, I don't morally equivocate human beings with objects that aren't alive, have no will and feel no pain. I don't accept that simply being a creator gives one a blanket justification to harm or destroy absolutely anything one creates, because that's just a way of saying "might makes right" without using those three specific words.

Well you have done nothing to demonstrate that a sentient being would necessarily have anymore right to exist than a non-sentient one. However-something even more intriguing-If you truly believe that your view of morality is not superior to anyone else’s then why do you bother giving it since it’s no more legitimate than the child rapist’s or the slave owner’s? Do you really try arguing with others about their favorite colors?

I would argue that sentience and consciousness past a certain level of complexity would count as a good exception to this rule of yours, even assuming I decide to play ball with what is, at its heart, a bare assertion to begin with.

There you are, glad you responded buddy. Why would consciousness and complexity be exceptions? I see no reason for that.

I would also ask how you're using the word "create" here, because there seems to be some inconsistencies.

Well no analogy is going to be perfect because God created all things, so any other example we can point to is going to be secondary to that.

You say that god created me, but really he didn't; my parents created me in the usual way, without god having to do any of his usual creative magic in the process. How did god have any hand in that at all?

God pre-ordained your existence from the very beginning, he created all matter and the mechanisms that created you so not only are you His intellectual property but His physical property as well.

Christians like to bring up free will as a reason why we sin, but doesn't that same free will prevent god from having any guiding hand in my conception at all?

This Christian does not bring up free will because the Bible never teaches that we have free will, in fact it teaches just the opposite. God ordains all that comes to pass.

You've either got a god who respects free will, in which case he had no bearing on my parents deciding to procreate and have me, or you've got a god that doesn't respect free will, in which case he mind controlled my parents to procreate and have me against their wills, which is in itself pretty screwed up.

Or your parents wanted to have you because God ordained that they would. I think that is far more elegant than thinking that you’re just some freak cosmic accident without purpose.

You might argue that god provided the initial materials and the process of procreation, but in that argument your example of Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse goes right out the window, as the initial materials used in the creation of Mickey belong to god too, and hence in that example the creator doesn't own his creation, someone else does.

No, you are right; God is the ultimate creator of Mickey Mouse and Walt Disney and ultimately owns them both. My example was more just to illustrate that people inherently understand that if you create something you legally own it. The only earthly examples we can point to are always secondary because God ultimately crated everything but it does show that the reasoning is sound and well established in our everyday lives. This is why the apostle Paul used the illustration of the potter and the clay, it’s an illustration that just makes sense.

Moreover, this point- should you choose to raise it- isn't even true: we routinely allow intellectual property rights to fall to the creator of a thing, even when it was made on "borrowed" materials. All violin music isn't property of the inventor of the violin, after all.

I like your example but we are all the intellectual property of God made of the material and by the mechanisms created by God so either way it still stands.