My views on objective morality

[Catholic_Lady]

Tibs, just wanted to let you know you're explaining everything really well. Mister Agenda was right on too when he was playing "devil's advocate."

I wish I could put what was on my mind into words like that.

[robvalue]

Is Tibs screwing with me? Is this a test?

Hmm...

This God he describes is feeble indeed and nothing like the ones theists generally present. If he was this crap (God) I'd have no problem admitting he is hugely limited and maybe can only manage this bollock of a universe.

[abaris]

Sorry Mystic, I can't understand what you're saying. You're using lots of words which mean nothing to me.

He's just being his usual self. I never quite understand what his points actually are.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The standard Christian answer to the Problem of Evil is that evil exists because without it a greater good could not be achieved or a greater evil would not be prevented. At this point, they have to accept some limitations on God's power, usually starting with not being able to do the impossible (though Drich goes after the super-good part). At this point, their concept of God is reduced (once again) to something unfalsifiable: An omnibenevolent being that knows everything that can be known and can do anything that can be done, that created the universe. He doesn't want there to be any evil, because he's omnibenevolent, so any evil that exists must be because there is a reason why it's not possible to avoid all of it. Presumably God is doing the best he can and things would be a lot worse if not for his efforts. It's a fairy tale, but it's a consistent and unfalsifiable one.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

I think in the preceding paragraph, you lay out quite nicely exactly why it is laden with internal contradiction and not consistent at all.

[robvalue]

I thought it was a given God is meant to omni benevolent and all that shit. If he's not, I have no argument. He's an evil bastard, job done. Or perhaps beyond my puny comprehension.

[Tiberius]

I don't follow Tibs. You seem to be placing restrictions on God again.

I'm not placing restrictions on God; I'm saying God places them on himself. The Christian God values free will of humanity over trying to protect them from all forms of evil.

Why can God only do it the ways you say?

Again, I'm not saying he can "only" do things in the ways I say, I'm saying that he chooses to do them in a certain way, rather than violate free will.

He could make it so that sex happened in such a way that it could never be unpleasant, and any party could leave at any time no matter what.

Unpleasantness has nothing to do with rape for the first part, and as for the second part, how would that work? The first thing that springs to mind is some form of teleportation, but then you've also just made murder and theft way easier to commit, so you've solved the problem of rape but now you have people asking why God gave people the power to teleport behind someone, stab them, and teleport away again.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that everything comes back to free will. There isn't a single action that cannot be abused and used for evil when you have free will. God values free will of humans more than anything.

He could have just made everything totally different to how it is now, so everything is awesome, and we're always happy. Current restrictions need never apply.

My contention is that it is impossible for everyone to always be happy when free will exists. When you have free will, you always have the ability to choose between doing good and doing evil, and at some point someone will choose to do evil.

[Catholic_Lady]

Is Tibs screwing with me?

Hopefully by explaining how I see things better than I ever did/could do, it will squash the accusation going around that I defend rape in any way shape or form.

[abaris]

I thought it was a given God is meant to omni benevolent and all that shit. If he's not, I have no argument. He's an evil bastard, job done. Or perhaps beyond my puny comprehension.

Not quite certain, but when you talk about god, he's a mirror of what the society conjuring him up wanted him to be. The OT is a perfect mirror of a paternalistic and not very educated society.

But this isn't the only god being a mirror of their society. All the Greek and Roman gods are too. The only difference being that they created a celestial government with individual human traits and vices.

[robvalue]

I don't accept this joker of a god, he isn't the one I'm familiar with. I shall twist his nipples and throw my ice cream in his face.

You're doing a good attempt Tibs, I'll give you that. Way better than any apologist. You're burying the fallacies nicely.

[Tiberius]

Is Tibs screwing with me? Is this a test?

No, I'm just playing devil's advocate and arguing the Christian position (or at least how I see it). It's fun and good practice for debating to argue a position that you disagree with once in a while.

This God he describes is feeble indeed and nothing like the ones theists generally present. If he was this crap (God) I'd have no problem admitting he is hugely limited and maybe can only manage this bollock of a universe.

I don't see it that way. Like I said before, being omnipotent means you have the ability to do everything; it doesn't mean you *have* to do everything a certain way; there's nothing that prevents omnipotent beings from having free will (in fact it's a requirement).

Could God create a sandwich the size of Neptune that was sentient? Sure. Doesn't mean he'll do that.