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]

However, we can go further and argue that goodness is a quality of consistency when it comes to one's moral decisions. If God is capable of moral decisions, which God must do in order to be God, then God must be good by definition of being God.

Not following. I am capable of moral decisions. Must I be good?

"by definition of being God" sounds circular to me.

If God were inconsistent in moral decisions (i.e., evil), then it would argue against the position that God is an omniscient interpreter of truth

An argument you have yet to justify (or even adequately define) in the first place.

[harvey1]

And how is it that you are equating "truth" with "good"?... How do you justify imparting a moral component to Truth?

1. X is an infinite set of every possible member decision (i.e., moral decision) that can or has been made by God
2. Goodness for God is defined as a set X where every moral decision in that set must cohere
3. Truth must cohere to be truth
4. God is part of the truth relation (i.e., as an omniscient interpeter that determines something as true)
5. As a consequence of (3) and (4), every moral decision of God must cohere.
6. God must make moral decisions to be considered God
7. Ergo, God must be good [(2), (5), (6)]

In other words, if God's decisions must cohere for God to be part of the truth relation, and Goodness for God is every moral decision cohering, then God must be Good.

[The Happy Humanist]

And how is it that you are equating "truth" with "good"?... How do you justify imparting a moral component to Truth?

1. X is an infinite set of every possible member decision (i.e., moral decision) that can or has been made by God
2. Goodness for God is defined as a set X where every moral decision in that set must cohere
3. Truth must cohere to be truth
4. God is part of the truth relation (i.e., as an omniscient interpeter that determines something as true)
5. As a consequence of (3) and (4), every moral decision of God must cohere.
6. God must make moral decisions to be considered God
7. Ergo, God must be good [(2), (5), (6)]

In other words, if God's decisions must cohere for God to be part of the truth relation, and Goodness for God is every moral decision cohering, then God must be Good.

Harvey, what you are doing here is masking circularity by hiding it in a mental labyrinth. You have done no more than redefine Good as "Anything God does." Since anything God does is Truth (i.e., it coheres, for by your own admission, God can't do something non-coherent), and every moral decision God makes that coheres is good, then God, by your definition, can do nothing Bad. By this thinking, God could upset the chessboard, say "I don't want to play any more," and send everyone to Hell whether they deserved it or not, and it would, by your definition, be Good.

Sorry, not buying.

[harvey1]

Harvey, what you are doing here is masking circularity by hiding it in a mental labyrinth. You have done no more than redefine Good as "Anything God does."

That's not true. I defined the Goodness of God as an infinite set of cohering moral decisions that God can possibly do. If God is not involved in a truth relation, and it's certainly debatable that God could perform that role, then where is the circularity?

Since anything God does is Truth (i.e., it coheres, for by your own admission, God can't do something non-coherent)

No. That's not the argument. If whatever God believes is true, that doesn't apply to a moral decision since there may be no truth or falsity to a moral decision. However, if God makes a decision because it confirms something to be true (i.e., the decision shows the coherence with something being true), then any moral decision would have to cohere with a previous moral decision. Otherwise, God is not acting as a verifier of truth.

and every moral decision God makes that coheres is good, then God, by your definition, can do nothing Bad.

God could certainly do something bad if God was not a verifier of truth or the Goodness of God was not contingent on the coherence of all the moral decisions of set X. Note, if either condition was the case, this would not eliminate God from being God. Certainly you could have God as doing some function outside the truth relation, and you could certainly argue that Goodness is not related to coherence of moral decisions. For example, you might argue a reductio argument that Satan could be considered "Good" if all of Satan's moral decisions cohere.

By this thinking, God could upset the chessboard, say "I don't want to play any more," and send everyone to Hell whether they deserved it or not, and it would, by your definition, be Good. Sorry, not buying.

This is exactly what I'm not arguing. God is in violation on being considered Good iff certain moral decisions within X do not cohere. For example, if one of God's moral decisions is to throw the chessboard, and another moral decision is to absolutely forbid throwing chessboards, then these two decisions are not coherent. This would not be a Good God we are talking about. Using my argument, it would be an Evil God. This God could conceivably exist, but I argue that my premises are appropriate in saying that only a Good God can actually exist.

[The Happy Humanist]

By this thinking, God could upset the chessboard, say "I don't want to play any more," and send everyone to Hell whether they deserved it or not, and it would, by your definition, be Good. Sorry, not buying.

This is exactly what I'm not arguing. God is in violation on being considered Good iff certain moral decisions within X do not cohere. For example, if one of God's moral decisions is to throw the chessboard, and another moral decision is to absolutely forbid throwing chessboards, then these two decisions are not coherent. This would not be a Good God we are talking about. Using my argument, it would be an Evil God. This God could conceivably exist, but I argue that my premises are appropriate in saying that only a Good God can actually exist.

My apologies; I wasn't quite sure what you meant by "coheres;" I thought it meant simply "corresponds with possible reality; not paradoxical." Apparently it means "consistent" within your set X.

But I'm still not buying. For one thing, this business of God being the verifier of Truth. Truth, as you put it, is correspondence between some cosmic statement and an actuality in the cosmos. (Or something like that). But "God exists" is a statement. Who verifies that one? Who or what verifies the Truth of God? And whoever that turns out to be, who verifies the Truth of THAT entity? We're back on the merry-go-round.

Second, your premise (3) above, "Truth must cohere to be truth", does not necessarily mean that truth must cohere with your Set X. Some truths (i.e. statements that correspond with reality) may cohere with another set Y, "Bad moral decisions." I.e., some things may be "True" and "Bad" at the same time. Unless I'm still not understanding your use of the word "Truth."

[Tim the Skeptic]

harvey1

Could you work through an example for me with these 7 steps? Job's kids are dead. How's that work through the 7 steps?

I get the sense that you don't believe in the literal truth of the story of Job. If that's the case, I agree with you. But I also don't think the literal truth of the Job story matters. It is a story about the aspects of God. It is supposed to be a metaphor for the larger truth about God. Well, it looks like God doesn't lose a lot of sleep over killing people. How does that make it through the 7 steps to God's goodness?

[harvey1]

But I'm still not buying. For one thing, this business of God being the verifier of Truth. Truth, as you put it, is correspondence between some cosmic statement and an actuality in the cosmos. (Or something like that). But "God exists" is a statement. Who verifies that one?

That statement doesn't need verification because its veracity is evident just to ask the question. It's like asking what caused cause? If we ask what caused causation, then the answer is that nothing caused causation since you need the concept of causation to ask "what caused X." Similarly, "an Omniscient Interpreter exists" doesn't need a verification since the nature of truth requires an omniscient interpreter to make sense of the statement. Any version of reality that we can construct all require an omniscient interpreter, so it is meaningless to try and construct a view of reality where you assume that an omniscient interpreter is a secondary property of reality. It is a primitive of any kind of reality whatsoever.

Who or what verifies the Truth of God? And whoever that turns out to be, who verifies the Truth of THAT entity? We're back on the merry-go-round.

Again, it's a question with its answer residing in the question (i.e., another "what caused cause?" question). Truth requires a satisfaction relation, truth is satisfied if an absolute mind exists that comprehends and agrees truth has been satisfied. This is what it means for something to be true and hence, as a result, existence is instantiated at the will of this omniscient interpreter. There is no need for another satisfaction relation (and therefore another omniscient interpreter and another and another...) to verify the truth of the lower omniscient interpreter(s) since the Omniscient Interpreter has already passed judgement on the truth of a proposition. If there was a such a need for nested omniscient interpreters, then the original Omniscient Interpreter would not be meeting the need of the original satisfaction relation, and therefore there would be no truth obtainable (i.e., no reality could possibly exist, which is a paradox since that non-reality world would be a reality in need of a satisfaction relation being confirmed). Hence, the only reality possible is the one in which one Omniscient Interpreter exists to instantiate an evolving world.

Second, your premise (3) above, "Truth must cohere to be truth", does not necessarily mean that truth must cohere with your Set X. Some truths (i.e. statements that correspond with reality) may cohere with another set Y, "Bad moral decisions." I.e., some things may be "True" and "Bad" at the same time. Unless I'm still not understanding your use of the word "Truth."

Set X is not about truth or falsity. It is about all possible moral decisions that God could and does make. (3) and (4) establish that regardless whatever moral decisions God could and does make, they must cohere. They could all be evil moral decisions having nothing to do with whether they are true (or correspond with the world). Since God is locked into coherence as an omniscient interpreter, it is this aspect that locks God into coherence with respect to X. If there is a lack of coherence in the decisions within X (even if the moral decisions have nothing to do with truth), then God has an incoherency problem with respect to truth. Let me illustrate:

a) Statement X(232): "It is sometimes necessary to steal from the poor and give to the rich"
b) Statement X(305): "Stealing from the poor is always morally wrong"

These statements can be shown to be incoherent with respect to truth:

c) It is true that according to X that "stealing from the poor is sometimes necessary"
d) It is true that according to X that "stealing from the poor is always morally wrong"

Notice, (c) and (d) are actually false, but they must be true since they are offered as true statements about X. God, as an omniscient interpreter, cannot allow X to be incoherent like this since it makes God's role as an omniscient interpreter as incoherent. As you can imagine, it matters little whether (a) is corrected or (b) is corrected, as long as one of the moral decisions is fixed. There's no impetus within (3) and (4) to truly be about Goodness. If (b) were fixed to say "stealing from the poor is usually okay," then X would be coherent, but X in that case would not be our understanding of what morality is. However, X is made to be moral by (2).

[harvey1]

Could you work through an example for me with these 7 steps? Job's kids are dead. How's that work through the 7 steps?

Well, the 7 steps are about answering THH's question on why we should expect God to be a Good God.

I get the sense that you don't believe in the literal truth of the story of Job.

No, I don't think this is a true story, at least all of it happening to one person. I think it is a carefully developed story to address the problem of evil. But, I might be wrong of course...

But I also don't think the literal truth of the Job story matters. It is a story about the aspects of God. It is supposed to be a metaphor for the larger truth about God. Well, it looks like God doesn't lose a lot of sleep over killing people. How does that make it through the 7 steps to God's goodness?

Well, I don't think God is a person. I don't think God has hands and feet, and does exercise in the morning before turning on Oprah and Jerry to see what those humans are up to today. For me, God can be personal if we draw close to God as our Heavenly Father, but this does not make God a person. God is an "entity" that can be personal and interact with us on our level, but God is still the God of Truth. God's work in this world is to find out what is true, and this brings tests to human beings which can be unbelievably painful and sad. For example, Jesus in the Lord's Prayer said:

May we have forgiveness for our sins, as we make free all those who are in debt to us. And let us not be put to the test.

Even Jesus prayed that he wouldn't have to drink of the "cup" of martyrdom.

[trencacloscas]

trencacloscas wrote:
Then I have to ask, harvey. Do you have any actual hint of this actualization? Some event where this supposed capability took place and cannot be explained by any other reason?

harvey1 wrote:
Sure. You're looking at it if you open your eyes, it's the universe!

Didn't expect such statement from you, harvey. The most brainwashed mormon-robot preaching at the corner would come up with such nonsense, I thought you were above that. The universe is a reality that sure God doesn't explain. Always back to Bertrand Russell: "Who invented universe? God did. Who invented God? God did. How? I don't know, it's mystery. Then no explanation of the first causes and ultimate reasons are given". My big clash against Christianism was precisely that it could not give any accurate philosophical explanation about our reality. I really thought you were about to mention miracles

For an argument to show that it cannot be explained by any other reason, I suggest that you follow this thread on brute facts, this one that argues against material causation, and this one that shows that the strongest arguments for atheism are not satisfactory to discount the evidence for God's existence.

Don't quite get it... Why do you give me this threads were your arguments were beaten into a pulp?

[harvey1]

The universe is a reality that sure God doesn't explain. Always back to Bertrand Russell: "Who invented universe? God did. Who invented God? God did. How? I don't know, it's mystery. Then no explanation of the first causes and ultimate reasons are given". My big clash against Christianism was precisely that it could not give any accurate philosophical explanation about our reality.

Russell lived in the pre-cosmological age of science. Since the evidence of the expansion of the universe became overwhelming to deny, we know our material universe has an origin at the big bang. Had Russell would have known this, then he would not have been able to say what he did. In addition, it's quite a different story for God to be necessary in any kind of conception of reality versus a universe just existing forever. In the case of our universe we can't rely on brute facts as my thread in the philosophy forum demonstrates.

Don't quite get it... Why do you give me this threads were your arguments were beaten into a pulp?

Hardy har har. By whose army? I'm still waiting for responses to my questions.