The trilemma all gods face

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:48 am

Hi all,

It just seemed like a lot of people on the site were not familiar with the trilemma all gods worth following face. This is the trilemma of is the God good, is it just and is it loving.

So what's the issue.

If the God is good then it is just. If it is not just then it is not good.
If the God is just then it cannot be merciful. if the god wants to show mercy on someone then it is not being just. If it wants to be just then it is not being merciful.
If a Good is merciful then it is not being just and nor is it being good.

No god outside of God resolves this trilemma. For instance Allah is claimed to be just and merciful but never explains how it is being just or merciful when it shows mercy on someone. Worse since we know Allah is claimed to be merciful then we know Allah is not just or good. If a God is not good then there is nothing to trust and so why does anyone follow Allah? What proof is there that Allah actually is merciful.

So in Christianity the trilemma is resolved.

Mankind's sins require justice.
God justly sentences us to hell.
God also loves us and so pays for our sins.
Those that wish to accept that payment for their sins are able to justly go to heaven.
In this way God shows that he is good, just and loving.

Obviously the floor is open to disagreement or refinement of the above.

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:32 am

[Replying to post 25 by JoeyKnothead]

That's not hard joey.

Suppose I loved an object and I wanted to protect it. I might put it in a safe room, I might control the temperature and humidity and atmospherics. I might make the room earthquake proof.

Then I might exclude objects from the room that might destroy it.

It's an obvious example of love.

Can you see the analogy? Are you really arguing I have to prove love?

It's not about the objects outside the room that prove I love the object in the room.

FarWanderer · Post by **FarWanderer** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:38 am

ttruscott wrote:Christianity as I understand it suggests we don't go to hell for sins we do, we go for self creating ourselves as eternally evil, a devil or demon. This is because sins we do are all of equal and ultimate disvalue but only some people chose to become demons by rejecting YHWH as their GOD and rejecting HIS promises and warnings as the selfish manipulations of a false god.

False gods my be able to commit selfish manipulations, because false gods are "something", at least.

but no god at all is "nothing", and therefore cannot do anything.

Remember, non-believers don't see YHWH as a false god, but as no god at all. Non-believers aren't rejecting anything, except for the claims that YHWH exists and has made promises and warnings.

FarWanderer · Post by **FarWanderer** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:50 am

[Replying to post 31 by Wootah]

If you were omnipotent, all you have to do is make your beloved object indestructable (by all but yourself).

Furthermore, there is no reason that the "safe room" has to be the only desirable place to be. There is nothing stopping you from having another nice room set aside for your other beloved (but dangerous) objects.

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:07 am

[Replying to post 33 by FarWanderer]

I take it you understood the analogy at least. The point was to show that God's love is demonstrated by protecting what he loves and that it is illogical to point at hell as evidence of not love.

In fact if there was no hell there would be no heaven. A good loving being always separates.

The reason the separation is heaven and hell is that the choice is relationship with God or not. There is no middle room between heaven and hell.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:07 am

Wootah wrote: I take it you understood the analogy at least. The point was to show that God's love is demonstrated by protecting what he loves and that it is illogical to point at hell as evidence of not love.

That is unless that objects in question is sentient and capible of suffering, and the place one seperate out said objects is a place of suffering.

In fact if there was no hell there would be no heaven. A good loving being always separates.

Alternatively a good loving being could modify said potentically dangerious objects in a way so that they are no longer destructive.

The reason the separation is heaven and hell is that the choice is relationship with God or not. There is no middle room between heaven and hell.

While "relationship or not" is a true dichotomy, the the "or not" covers multipule scenarios, why isn't that taken into account?

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:32 am

[Replying to post 35 by Bust Nak]

If you were modified in such a way then you would not have free will and then there is no way of having a relationship with God.

FarWanderer · Post by **FarWanderer** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:03 am

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 33 by FarWanderer]

I take it you understood the analogy at least. The point was to show that God's love is demonstrated by protecting what he loves and that it is illogical to point at hell as evidence of not love.

In fact if there was no hell there would be no heaven. A good loving being always separates.

The reason the separation is heaven and hell is that the choice is relationship with God or not. There is no middle room between heaven and hell.

God is supposed to love all the "dangerous" objects too, like Joey. Your analogy doesn't even begin to address that issue, which is precisely Joey's objection.

And there is simply nothing that could possibly stop God from protecting everything he loves. It makes perfect sense that heaven requires an alternative. What doesn't make sense is why that alternative has to specifically be eternal conscious torture.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:04 am

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 35 by Bust Nak]

If you were modified in such a way then you would not have free will and then there is no way of having a relationship with God.

Would it? This is what I have in mind: Jesus' blood is said to be able to washing away the sinful nature of man. Is Jesus's blood ineffective on unrepentant sinners? With my sinful nature gone, I would want to have a relationship with God by my own freewill, no?

Then there are whole cans of worm with freewill.
1) Our freewill is already limited by physical limitation. I cannot will my eyes to shoot laser beams.
1.5) Beliefs are not matter of choice. I cannot will myself to believe 2+2=5.
2) Freewill to choose evil is overrated. I will not miss the ability to freely choose to murder my family. I am perfectly happy with having the ability to freely choose which sports team to support and so on.
Bonus can) Omniscience, determinism and free will.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:06 am

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 33 by FarWanderer]

I take it you understood the analogy at least. The point was to show that God's love is demonstrated by protecting what he loves and that it is illogical to point at hell as evidence of not love.

In fact if there was no hell there would be no heaven. A good loving being always separates.

The reason the separation is heaven and hell is that the choice is relationship with God or not. There is no middle room between heaven and hell.

Even given that all this is true, for the sake of argument, I have two questions:

1) Why does hell (eternal exclusion from Heaven), have to be eternal active torture? Why not simple annihilation of consciousness, that would accomplish the same "protection of Heaven", so to speak. The same separation and protection.

2) How about if one chooses God but not in a Christian manner? Muslims, Jews, and other religous all desire to be in relationship with God as well. Why wouldn't God honor that, and punish otherwise good God seeking people for getting a matter of belief "wrong"?

And it could be argued that even Atheists who seek the Good, are ultimately seeking God, who you and I consider the author of all Good, whether they realize it or not.

I think Farwanderer makes a great point in post 37, which I just saw upon closer inspection of the thead. I would only add that even human jailers are more compassionate than hell as described by mainstream Christianity. In the more civilized nations, human prisons do not torture prisoners, and certainly not eternally. Yet they also achieve the principle of "separation". Why is it not reasonable to believe that God could and does come up with at least as compassionate a solution?

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:47 am

Wootah wrote: [Replying to post 35 by Bust Nak]

If you were modified in such a way then you would not have free will and then there is no way of having a relationship with God.

How then, does Jesus death actually modify us and make us fit for Heaven? How does his death remove our sin and not just the "penalty for sin"? HOW does he sanctify us either in this world or the next, except maybe by his teachings and example?