if christian god existed, would he be a cruel god?

@DoomedBishop said in #3:

@xDoubledragon

I think I agree with you, to a large extent. I don't know if I believe in any God at all, but if I did believe, I would expect God to be fair...not make it too easy for anyone, but treat us justly. I have trouble believing that any good God would sentence someone to Hell for any finite crime. The punishment should fit the crime, if there is one at all.

Before anyone rips me a new one for being a non-believer who has not read the Bible, I want to state that I did not have a largely religious background. I have not had the same experiences as someone who has gone to church every Sunday at least. I don't think it is my duty to read the Bible. Also, don't you find it interesting that Satan gets to run Hell? I thought Satan was the archenemy of God. Why would God, in His infinite wisdom, send us to a Hell governed by the Devil? How would God know if we were being punished fairly? I believe God would destroy Satan (and us, possibly) rather than allow for any infinite suffering to go on...my beliefs might be way out there, but my beliefs are my own.

Satan runs hell comes from cartoons. It isnt what Christians believe. Hell was created as a prison for the devil. He doesnt run it no one does.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #197:

But if we do approach it from a rational perspective, does the Christian god not seem cruel?

God could have:

1. Made a universe where suffering and evil does not exist, and still accomplish whatever goal humans were created for. If he couldn’t do this, he’s not all powerful.
2. He wanted humans to endure evil and needless suffering. Hence he’s not all good.
3. Humans introduced suffering and evil without his intention. Hence he’s not all knowing, or powerful enough to change what he started, or doesn’t care (he’s not good).

Seriously, what am I missing here?

1. How many megawatts of power does it take to form a married bachelor? Infinite power cannot make round triangles or make a contradiction valid. Your first premise is wrong.
   free will entails the ability to choose evil.
   If you cannot choose to do evil you cannot choose not to.
   If one cannot make libertarian free choices he cannot love. If he cannot love he cannot bare the image of God.
   The purpose.
   2,3) You could spend some time in beverly hills, meet some teens and "adults" who have never suffered a day in their lives. Then come back and tell us its needless.

I suppose I should not have opened Pandora's Box. For those of you wondering if I am being literal, I am not. However, I must take responsibility for what I typed. I hope we can move on to a different discussion (eventually)...

I have been lost for a long time. I keep hoping I will find the truth before it is too late. Now, to be clear, I am not asking for help from anyone here. I must find it on my own. So, I hope I can make a peace offering. I can't promise to stay out of the forum, but I will try to be a bit more mindful of what I say.

I also want to thank you folks for your different views on this subject...and thanks to the one who started this topic.

Take care.

@clousems said in #199:

You're still presupposing God's intentions. Rationality is a human attribute-- it is what separates us from other organisms. Supposing there is a God, he would not be an organism at all, but rather a higher being. Judging the actions of a being like that would be like approaching rationality from the standpoint of your pet or houseplant. At some point, it becomes purely a matter of faith-- if we start using examples to prove points regarding goodness or badness of god, we hit dead ends. For example:

a) The bad in the world can be seen as something to help us appreciate all that is good-- this proves that God is not cruel
b) The good fortune of others can be seen as something that exacerbates the pain of our own misfortune-- this proves that God is cruel

But the philosophy of ethics is not limited to humanity, but to moral phenomena. And since god puts forth a moral code, it's completely fair to judge him ethically. It's like claiming a universal standard and origin of physics, and then telling people that they can't use physics to measure it.

If we judge god based on the same ethics we would apply to humans, it's pretty clear he's evil. The bad in the world is not justified by helping others appreciate good - I would be pretty evil if I killed my child's dog in order to make them appreciate life. Giving one woman 9 miscarriages in order to make other women appreciate their fertility is not "a good thing to do." Particularly when god has the power to structure the universe such that we could learn to appreciate good without the existence of the suffering of innocents. One universal standard of ethics throughout all human societies is that harming another person for no reason is a bad thing to do. Hence punishing an entire species for the evil deeds of one person (the person who according to Christianity introduced sin) is not justified from the perspective of humans. And for those of you that want to respond to this with "Oh it's okay that your child died a horrible death from an incurable disease, this guy ate an apple he wasn't supposed to," I wish the absolute worst on you.

To your point though, we do apply different ethical codes for varying levels of intelligence. A coyote that kills a baby isn't evil, it's following it's biological urges and can't do otherwise. However, we hold higher ethical standards for higher levels of intelligence. A small child that strikes someone out of frustration will be punished less harshly than a fully grown and capable human that strikes someone out frustration. Hence we should hold god to a HIGHER moral standard than our own, and there he falls horribly short.

Finally, we could judge god based on the ethical standards of his own construction, and here he also falls short. "Thou shalt not kill....but do as I say, not as I do!" Going back to your analogy, we do a similar thing for our own pets. We hold them to a moral code similar to that we apply to humans, but less stringent. Responsible pet owners have an ethical code they want their pets to live by. Don't harm other beings, don't pee on the floor, ect. If we followed God's example of imposing a moral code and then completely ignoring it when applying it to ourselves, then if my dog peed on the floor, it would be okay for me to piss on the floor for 40 days and 40 nights until most dogs are wiped from the earth.

@clousems said in #199:

You're still presupposing God's intentions. Rationality is a human attribute-- it is what separates us from other organisms. Supposing there is a God, he would not be an organism at all, but rather a higher being. Judging the actions of a being like that would be like approaching rationality from the standpoint of your pet or houseplant. At some point, it becomes purely a matter of faith-- if we start using examples to prove points regarding goodness or badness of god, we hit dead ends. For example:

a) The bad in the world can be seen as something to help us appreciate all that is good-- this proves that God is not cruel
b) The good fortune of others can be seen as something that exacerbates the pain of our own misfortune-- this proves that God is cruel

Another ethical contradiction from your line of thinking is that the suffering god allows to exist is for the greater good of humanity. I mean, it is pretty clear humanity as a whole takes precedence over the individual if God is willing to wipe out villages and cause mass suffering to teach lessons.

However, if this were the case, then why does someone who follows all of Christian ethical codes - EXCEPT for believing in god - still go to hell. I could do everything right except not believe in god, and still burn in hell for all eternity. That is very cruel.

@Strange-Nickel said in #200:

Omniscient means all knowing. It is smply false that Gods omniscience precludes our free will.
Think about it another way if we have free will how is that a product of divine ignorance? It doesnt follow.

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I always think of free will and God being all-knowing as God being able to predict every outcome or know every outcome - the result of every possibility.

But a choice is ultimately yours to make, even if God knows it already.

Someone knowing an apple will fall to the ground if you drop it doesn't mean that you don't have the free will to drop it or not. Simply knowing the outcome of something doesn't exclude freedom.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #204:

But the philosophy of ethics is not limited to humanity, but to moral phenomena. And since god puts forth a moral code, it's completely fair to judge him ethically. It's like claiming a universal standard and origin of physics, and then telling people that they can't use physics to measure it.

If we judge god based on the same ethics we would apply to humans, it's pretty clear he's evil. The bad in the world is not justified by helping others appreciate good - I would be pretty evil if I killed my child's dog in order to make them appreciate life. Giving one woman 9 miscarriages in order to make other women appreciate their fertility is not "a good thing to do." Particularly when god has the power to structure the universe such that we could learn to appreciate good without the existence of the suffering of innocents. One universal standard of ethics throughout all human societies is that harming another person for no reason is a bad thing to do. Hence punishing an entire species for the evil deeds of one person (the person who according to Christianity introduced sin) is not justified from the perspective of humans. And for those of you that want to respond to this with "Oh it's okay that your child died a horrible death from an incurable disease, this guy ate an apple he wasn't supposed to," I wish the absolute worst on you.

To your point though, we do apply different ethical codes for varying levels of intelligence. A coyote that kills a baby isn't evil, it's following it's biological urges and can't do otherwise. However, we hold higher ethical standards for higher levels of intelligence. A small child that strikes someone out of frustration will be punished less harshly than a fully grown and capable human that strikes someone out frustration. Hence we should hold god to a HIGHER moral standard than our own, and there he falls horribly short.

Finally, we could judge god based on the ethical standards of his own construction, and here he also falls short. "Thou shalt not kill....but do as I say, not as I do!" Going back to your analogy, we do a similar thing for our own pets. We hold them to a moral code similar to that we apply to humans, but less stringent. Responsible pet owners have an ethical code they want their pets to live by. Don't harm other beings, don't pee on the floor, ect. If we followed God's example of imposing a moral code and then completely ignoring it when applying it to ourselves, then if my dog peed on the floor, it would be okay for me to piss on the floor for 40 days and 40 nights until most dogs are wiped from the earth.

Regardless of the points you make, I can still raise my same objection—you are using human rationality to judge a being of a higher order than humans. That is not an objection that can be dealt with. The only way to break this cycle is to fall into one of two faith-based camps: I have faith that God is good, or I have faith that God is bad (I suppose you could also invoke the argument that God may not or does not exist, but that makes the entire discussion a moot point).

Re 205, that’s not a universally accepted principle. There are some denominations that believe this, but also many that believe that non-Christians can indeed go to heaven.

My thread is more fun than this one:

https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/what-if-god-is-actually-a-flying-spaghetti-monster

@clousems said in #207:

Regardless of the points you make, I can still raise my same objection—you are using human rationality to judge a being of a higher order than humans. That is not an objection that can be dealt with. The only way to break this cycle is to fall into one of two faith-based camps: I have faith that God is good, or I have faith that God is bad (I suppose you could also invoke the argument that God may not or does not exist, but that makes the entire discussion a moot point).

Re 205, that’s not a universally accepted principle. There are some denominations that believe this, but also many that believe that non-Christians can indeed go to heaven.

So in conclusion, if one were to use actual rational and logical thought, God is cruel.

However, we’re not allowed to use rational thought when it comes to unprovable bullshit, even though the large majority of Christians find it perfectly acceptable to extend their faith to attempt to explain the physical world.

These people find it perfectly acceptable to elect government based on this that attempts to force their illogical beliefs on the rest of the population, and directly undermine our methods to actually understand the universe. “Climate change and evolution aren’t real, haven’t you read genesis??” You can’t have your freedoms, this idea based entirely outside the realm of rational thought forbids it.”

This is why we MUST use the tools we have to actually judge Christianity, along with the infinite other possible unprovable ideas about how the universe and humanity came into existence.

@Sleepy_Gary No—what I’m saying is that if you believe in or suppose a cruel God, you can rationally argue his cruelty. If you believe in or suppose a kind God, you can rationally argue his kindness. If you try to start from a rational perspective to make a moral judgement of God, the human mind won’t be able to comprehend all of the necessary data to make an informed decision, both due to the sheer amount of information and the existence of information that humans do not possess.