God, Satan and Job

[Tim the Skeptic]

The book of Job starts out with the "divine beings", including Satan, getting together with God. (OK, this is bizarre considering what I understand of God/Satan relationship, but not my point here.) And then this conversation, as I interpret it, occurs:

God (to Satan): Isn't Job a great guy, he is a blameless and upright man.

Satan: Look at the way he's been blessed by you. Of course, he's a great guy.

God: OK, you can do to his life whatever you want but don't hurt him.

Satan destroys Job's wealth and kills his children. But he did so with God's permission, so, who's responsible? Is God the source of this evil that happens to Job?

[The Happy Humanist]

I do not buy the argument that the evil done by God is ultimately for a good cause, or part of a divine plan that will someday be revealed, or is to show us the difference between good and evil. I have several reasons for this:

1) No human being could get by with this in any legal system that I'm aware of. "Yes, your honor, I did torture my child, but it was to make him a stronger person."

Now, you may wish to argue that man's moral justifications can't be compared to God's, because God's intentions are known to be pure. Sorry, that's circular; it is really God's existence that is on trial here, and since he doesn't care to leave behind any empirical evidence, then evidence of consistency in his actions is just about all we're left with. His "pure intentions" remains a claim that needs to be justified.

There is also the problem of Absolute Good vs. "Situational Ethics." We non-theists are constantly hammered with our relative view of morality, yet here we have yet another example of God employing the same double standard. Apparently all morality is relative. It's relative to whether or not you are an all-powerful deity. So: Is God the source of Absolute Good or not? Is it OK for him to torment Job, and does that therefore mean it is OK for us to, for example, use horrific tortures to extract information from Iraqi POWs? It's for the greater good, right? Shall we not let the Bible be our guidebook in all matters of ethics?

2) The entire question is rendered moot by my Malak Anti-Cosmological argument; that is, that all human suffering is unnecessary. God could have created us in heaven, fully glorified and praising him for all time, without this unpleasant detour through "reality". The fact that the universe exists at all thus disproves the existence of an all-good creator-deity.

[bobfisher]

I do not buy the argument that the evil done by God is ultimately for a good cause, or part of a divine plan that will someday be revealed, or is to show us the difference between good and evil. I have several reasons for this:
1) No human being could get by with this in any legal system that I'm aware of. "Yes, your honor, I did torture my child, but it was to make him a stronger person."

Now, you may wish to argue that man's moral justifications can't be compared to God's, because God's intentions are known to be pure. Sorry, that's circular; it is really God's existence that is on trial here, and since he doesn't care to leave behind any empirical evidence, then evidence of consistency in his actions is just about all we're left with. His "pure intentions" remains a claim that needs to be justified.

Ok, but no human being can raise the dead either.

I'm not trying to empirically prove God here. Just clearing up the fact that according to the bible God claims to have created evil and employs evil for good. I think Christianity doesn't like this idea, so they've found ways to explain it away.

There is also the problem of Absolute Good vs. "Situational Ethics." We non-theists are constantly hammered with our relative view of morality, yet here we have yet another example of God employing the same double standard. Apparently all morality is relative. It's relative to whether or not you are an all-powerful deity. So: Is God the source of Absolute Good or not? Is it OK for him to torment Job, and does that therefore mean it is OK for us to, for example, use horrific tortures to extract information from Iraqi POWs? It's for the greater good, right? Shall we not let the Bible be our guidebook in all matters of ethics?

To be honest I've never understood this whole relative vs absolute stuff. Of course the morality of our actions is relative to the situation. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. It was the pharisees who wanted Jesus to adhere to a rigid system without regard to mercy. Jesus called them hypocrites, white-washed graves. If you act in love you are obeying God's greatest commandment.

2) The entire question is rendered moot by my Malak Anti-Cosmological argument; that is, that all human suffering is unnecessary. God could have created us in heaven, fully glorified and praising him for all time, without this unpleasant detour through "reality". The fact that the universe exists at all thus disproves the existence of an all-good creator-deity.

There are some assumptions built into this argument:
1. That you do not benefit from the experience of suffering.
2. That God can impart an experience of suffering without you experiencing suffering.
_____

[bobfisher]

I've always noticed that whenever someone tries the arguement about requiring evil in order to understand good, it is always from the viewpoint of the survivor. Do you think the last thought on Job's childrens' minds was "Well, my life is getting snuffed out, but I am sure it is serving a greater good. Praise God."

Or were they terrified?

I'm sure they were terrified... as we all probably will be given the chance.

Luke 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

In the resurrection we are all survivors.

[The Happy Humanist]

Ok, but no human being can raise the dead either.

I'm not trying to empirically prove God here. Just clearing up the fact that according to the bible God claims to have created evil and employs evil for good. I think Christianity doesn't like this idea, so they've found ways to explain it away.

Well, I have to admit, you're one of the first Christians I've heard cop to the evil thing. And I'm glad you're willing to think outside the box. But raising the dead does not prove good intentions, since it was God that invented death in the first place - what were his intentions then?

To be honest I've never understood this whole relative vs absolute stuff. Of course the morality of our actions is relative to the situation.

Again, a refreshing point of view. You will be an interesting debater.

If you act in love you are obeying God's greatest commandment.

And isn't it nice to know that we don't need a divine commandment in order to know that acting out of love is usually a good thing.

There are some assumptions built into this argument:
1. That you do not benefit from the experience of suffering.

It's more of a conclusion, based on the fact that no one can state a credible benefit to most suffering. I think for instance of the person trapped in the wreckage of an earthquake who takes a week to die. Or the child horribly deformed at birth, to the point of being basically non-functional. You know, the ones they can't show you in the Easter Seals ads. Or the victims of Huntington's Disease. Or the children tortured to death by Sadaam Hussein. Show me the benefit. Show me the net good.

2. That God can impart an experience of suffering without you experiencing suffering.

Oh? A limitation on God's creative prowess? Say it ain't so!

[bobfisher]

But raising the dead does not prove good intentions, since it was God that invented death in the first place - what were his intentions then?

Right. I was just pointing out that if you or I killed someone, its worse because we can't undo what we did.

It's more of a conclusion, based on the fact that no one can state a credible benefit to most suffering. I think for instance of the person trapped in the wreckage of an earthquake who takes a week to die. Or the child horribly deformed at birth, to the point of being basically non-functional. You know, the ones they can't show you in the Easter Seals ads. Or the victims of Huntington's Disease. Or the children tortured to death by Sadaam Hussein.

I'm sure you can come up with many specific examples of suffering that are just so gruesome and seem so pointless, I can not begin explain the benefit in a convincing way.

But I can see some benefit to much of the suffering that goes on. Mainly so that we can learn what suffering is like, so we can become merciful and caring for others who suffer. So we can rid ourselves of selfishness that seems to be mankind's tendancy.

The way I look at it, my perspective is so very limited, that even though it looks to me like some suffering is just ridiculously pointless, I don't fully trust my own opinion, because there is just so much I can not know.

Oh? A limitation on God's creative prowess? Say it ain't so!

Let's see. Here are some limitations from the bible: God is not a man. God can not be tempted. God can not lie. So there's already some limitations. I don't know if the limitation I gave is true or not. But it might be. If there is a best way for us to comprehend suffering, would God use the second best way? Can can make the second best way, the best way?

[The Happy Humanist]

I'm sure you can come up with many specific examples of suffering that are just so gruesome and seem so pointless, I can not begin explain the benefit in a convincing way.

And so atheism wins this round. Thanks for the concession!

But I can see some benefit to much of the suffering that goes on. Mainly so that we can learn what suffering is like, so we can become merciful and caring for others who suffer. So we can rid ourselves of selfishness that seems to be mankind's tendancy.

But this learning process would happen with or without a God! You should always bear in mind that the main point of my being on this board is not to discuss whether God intended us to suffer, but to show that the universe makes more sense without a God!

Your way:
God exists. He created us perfect, but with the capacity to sin (a contadiction in itself). We sinned, we fell from grace, so now there is suffering, some of which is to teach us to be merciful (a quality seemingly lacking in God) and some of which is so horrendous that we cannot fathom its purpose or its net benefit (but we must have faith that there is one).

Our way:
No God. Stuff happens.

In other words, I'm sure if you rack your brain you can probably come up with some kind of rationalization for God's actions, even the seemingly contradictory ones such as his treatment of Job (note the tie back into the topic ) My point is, that whatever you come up with is going to have to involve a lot less mental gymnastics in order to compete with "our way."

[bobfisher]

HH

Did you think my posts were intended to disprove atheism? That was not my intention, nor am I under the impression that I can prove God exists. I posted to dispel what I believe are false notions about what the bible says regarding the purpose of evil, suffering & Satan.

You don't really have 'my way' down quite right. You are describing what typical Christendom thinks when you say that Adam was perfect and then sinned (wrecking God's creation in a way God had not intended).

God made Adam perfectly only in the sense that God made Adam exactly the way God intended. God fully knew that Satan (whom God also created) would tempt Eve & Adam and they would sin and choose to bring knowlege of good & evil upon mankind and with it sin, death, suffering, evil.

If Adam had been perfect then he would have been like Christ. But the bible (1 Cor 15) draws a sharp contast between Adam (earthy, natural, weak, mortal, corruptible, dishonor) and Christ (heavenly, spiritual, powerful, imortal, incorrutible, glory). And as you pointed out, Adam sinned so he could not have been perfect, which is why the bible calls him corruptible.

Your argument relies on the assumption that if there is a God then God would create creatures that can fathom His major ways. Whenever this is not the case then God's creatures will think they see an apparent inconsistency in a God-created world and conclude that God does not exist.

[harvey1]

And so atheism wins this round. Thanks for the concession!

THH, what's gotten into you lately? You never used to be this impolite.

Anyway, Spetey, you, and I already covered this ground. The problem of evil comes down to whether the atheist is claiming that it is impossible for an all-powerful, all-good God to allow evil (therefore an all-powerful, all-good God necessarily cannot exist), or whether the atheist is claiming that an all-powerful, all-good God probably would not allow evil (therefore an all-powerful, all-good God probably doesn't exist). In both Spetey's case and your case, you later admitted that the former argument was mistaken. As for the second argument, you also admitted that you lack sufficient knowledge to make this judgement as to whether it is probable that an all-good, all-powerful God would allow evil. Therefore, both of your arguments fail.

Sorry, but I'm not an atheist yet, and Spetey is no longer around to help defend your views (and sorry, Quentin Smith hasn't shown up either), so you'll have to actually defend your position that you have "won."

[The Happy Humanist]

Did you think my posts were intented to disprove atheism? That was not my intention, nor am I under the impression that I can prove God exists. I posted to dispel what I believe are false notions about what the bible says regarding the purpose of evil, suffering & Satan.

Prove, shmove. You are arguing that Christian theology is rational; I am arguing that it is not. I leave it to the philosophers to determine if something shown to be irrational can still be true. Basically we're arguing the relative merits of two worldviews.

You don't really have 'my way' down quite right. You are describing what typical Christiandom thinks when you say that Adam was perfect and then sinned, thus wrecking God's creation in a way God had not intended.

What else can I do? Every time I turn around, someone is coming up with a NEW rationalization for Christianity. This could conceivably go on forever. If I tend to mischaracterize your views on Christian theology, it's because it's easier to address the classical arguments. If you have a different slant on things, as you appear to do, great.

God made Adam perfectly only in the sense that God made Adam exactly the way God intended. God fully knew that Satan (whom God also created) would tempt Eve & Adam and they would sin and choose to bring knowlege of good & evil upon mankind and with it sin, death, suffering, evil.

What is the point of creating something you know is going to suffer? What can possibly be gained from such an exercise?

Your argument relies [on] the assumption that if there is a God then God would create creatures that can fathom all His major ways. Whenever this is not the case then (some of) God's creatures will think they see an apparent inconsistency in a God-created world and conclude that God does not exist.

Yes, but your argument bears the burden of being a "free pass" that can be used to get out of any apparent inconsistency. Any time you run up against a paradox, a hypocrisy, or any other logical conundrum in God's behavior, you think you can pull it out of the fire by declaring that "We can't fathom God's ways." It is thus invalid as a true logical argument. Furthermore, its a genuinely dangerous concept. Imagine that God is really an ogre, a tyrant from another galaxy, but one who is adept at convincing people he's all-good, all-lovey-dovey, etc. With the thought planted firmly in your mind that God can do no wrong, and if he appears to do wrong, then it is we who are wrong, no behavior of God's can be questioned. He is then free to slaughter at will, chew up souls and spit them into the lake of fire willy-nilly, drown humanity, sic the Devil on Job, sic she-bears on children, etc. etc., and you will go blithely on claiming that he is the good guy, all the while being hoodwinked by a demon disguised as a benevolent sky-daddy.

If you doubt me, ask yourself this: "What possible behavior or action of God's would convince me that he's not all he's cracked up to be? What miscreance of his could not be excused by 'The Lord works in mysterious ways'"?

[trencacloscas]

Well if God didn't want it this way and yet it is this way, then God is not omnicient & omnipotent.

Of course. That's why I mentioned Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Beloved Pagan wisdom.