Mature content - Omiscient perceptions

[Willum]

So an assumption of the all-benign God is that it is also all-knowing.
Usually when I ask, does that mean he knows even unimportant things, like the brief existence of virtual particles, theists say, "he knows everything."
So does he know our emotions, and fears? they say, "he knows everything."

So let's examine this in a practical - if disturbing - way. Second warning, this is disturbing.

When a rapist is violating his victim, God knows it, he feels the violation, helplessness and pain of the victim, the absolute rejection of reality the victim is going through and inescapable despair that will last the rest of his life.
But he will also know the cruelty and power of the rapist.

In both cases, he does nothing but watch and experience this trauma, and since he is omniscient, from both sides, and does nothing.

If it were you or I witnessing this, and do nothing, what would that make us?
Deplorable monsters.
God is an intimate voyeur to this experience, and does nothing. What does that make him?
A purveyor of freewill?
Or a despicable monster?

The only conclusion is that this god approves of these acts and scripture even agrees.

So, what does this make God? What does this make those people who follow him?

Now what about when he is observing child molestation. Is he still and all-benevolent god?

[JJ50]

A god which can observe human suffering, especially that of children and could something about it, but chooses not to do so, is far from benign, it is evil. Hopefully a god like that doesn't actually exist.

[ttruscott]

So an assumption of the all-benign God is that it is also all-knowing.
Usually when I ask, does that mean he knows even unimportant things, like the brief existence of virtual particles, theists say, "he knows everything."
So does he know our emotions, and fears? they say, "he knows everything."

So let's examine this in a practical - if disturbing - way.

In the Christian system of justice I accept, there is no innocent suffering.
Only the guilty suffer and then only by that which is perfectly in accord with the guilt they have accrued to themselves by their free will choice to be evil.

To be conceived as a human is to show oneself to be already sinful. This would necessitate that we have an existence, a life in the spirit world, before our being conceived as human. This also suggests that the sinners who are sown into the world as humans have been evil and practicing evil for at least 6000 years and probably longer so the age of the person suffering for their sins is meaningless.

In GOD's justice system there are two types of suffering:
1. Rehabilitative.
Suffering is used to instil the need to find an end to the suffering. It focuses our attention on the relationship between our evil choices and the consequence of pain with the intent that the person repent and come to GOD to be redeemed and sanctified, that is, made heaven ready.

Since all sinfulness is chosen by their free will and since all suffering is in perfect sync with the sin they have chosen, I see no downside to this system. It is the basis for the tough love idea of letting someone hit bottom so that they want to be healed - which does not mean that you have quit caring about them.

2. Punitive.
This follows the idea that a crime must be punished, that legal redress for breaking the law is mandated whether there is a rehabilitative effect or not. This can be summed up as "you do the crime, you will do the time." This judgement against the crimes of sinners is perfectly in accord with the sin they have committed.

This I also accept as a righteous stance against lawbreakers whether in the world or in HIS system.

NOW, how does the fact that it is HIS perfectly knowledge of both the crimes committed and the amount of suffering each sinner has accrued which makes this system absolutely JUST and RIGHTEOUS, make HIS knowledge somehow suspect? Would you rather an imperfect judge who did NOT know the full extent of the sin of those who have sinned against YOU and did not know exactly how the punishment for your own sins would affect your life?

[1213]

...
If it were you or I witnessing this, and do nothing, what would that make us?
Deplorable monsters...

I think it could also mean we are cowards, or there could be even some other reasons for the actions. Without knowing all, it is actually difficult for me to judge God.

…
The only conclusion is that this god approves of these acts …

Sorry, I don’t think that is true, at least Bible doesn’t say so.

…Now what about when he is observing child molestation. Is he still and all-benevolent god?

I think God is all-benevolent, He ends all evil eventually. But if He would not give a chance to evil, like He does now, I don’t know could He be called all-benevolent. But I think it is truly sad that some people use their opportunity for evil. Luckily this first death is only a short lesson and doesn’t last forever.

[The Tanager]

I think your scenario presents your compassionate heart. I think all humans begin with that same moral view. I think this shows morality to be objective. I have yet to see an atheistic worldview that can do as good a job in grounding that objectivity as theism can. It's not logically impossible, but I haven't personally seen a good case made (and will always be open to hearing one or more).

Now, that definitely seems to conflict with your scenario at first glance, but I think we aren't approaching it at the right angle. To me, a creator God is faced with a choice at the beginning. Will it create beings (a) with free will, (b) beings that have no free will, (c) give them free will, but override their actions when it disagrees with them? I'm not sure there is another logical option. I think (a) is the better choice, because the other two negate love. As an analogy, I think of the options between (a) my love choosing to marry me out of her free will, (b) making a potion that will force her to want to marry me, and (c) forcing her to marry me even though she doesn't want to and remaining with her own feelings. To me, (a) is the best choice one could make. But, with that, I must give up some of the control.

[Zzyzx]

.

In the Christian system of justice I accept, there is no innocent suffering.

Is this intended as a personal version of ‘Christianity’, or as Christianity in general?

There seems to be a tendency for Apologists to come up with a personal version when confronted with Christian beliefs that they cannot justify or defend. Some identify this as ‘Pick and Choose Christianity’ – which contributes to there being tens of thousands of different ‘Christian’ sects.

Only the guilty suffer and then only by that which is perfectly in accord with the guilt they have accrued to themselves by their free will choice to be evil.

Yes, back to the guilty newborn who choose to be evil and are born with serious medical conditions. Little bundles of evil from birth

[Mithrae]

So let's examine this in a practical - if disturbing - way. Second warning, this is disturbing.

When a rapist is violating his victim, God knows it, he feels the violation, helplessness and pain of the victim, the absolute rejection of reality the victim is going through and inescapable despair that will last the rest of his life.
But he will also know the cruelty and power of the rapist.

In both cases, he does nothing but watch and experience this trauma, and since he is omniscient, from both sides, and does nothing.

I wonder if you would make the same argument about a God who 'does nothing' to prevent the suffering and pain of losing in a video game? After all I'm sure we've all seen or heard of pampered kids whose screaming reaction to such a loss suggests that the experience, in their minds, at that moment, is agonizingly traumatic.

I think the logical problem in your argument lies with the assumption that this God 'does nothing,' when the only thing you can really say is that he doesn't do everything; that he prevents less than 100% of unpleasant experiences. The spectrum of unpleasantness which humans have experienced or can conceive extends from distress that one's million dollar mansion isn't quite big enough (which in fact seems to be a life-driving and planet-consuming obsession for those folk), through losing a video game, breaking a leg, being raped and quite some distance beyond that. But for all we know, even the most sadistic physical and psychological tortures we can imagine are but a tiny fraction of what suffering there could be.

For all we know, this God prevents 99% of all suffering; and furthermore for all we know (and in fact I'd suggest this is quite probable), if he went further and prevented all rapes and nasty premature deaths bringing it up to 99.99% of all suffering prevented, we like pampered kids would simply feel just as distressed and traumatized over someone stubbing their toe as we currently do over rape, and make exactly the same complaints about the cruelty of the world and callousness of its hypothetical deity. Limited by our current perspective, we simply have no objective basis for deciding how much suffering is 'too much'; the only way we could make a logically valid argument from suffering is to suppose that any unpleasantness at all is too much.

So is that a sound argument? Does the suffering of losing a video game prove that a good God does not exist? Personally I would think not.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 5 by The Tanager]

To me, a creator God is faced with a choice at the beginning. Will it create beings (a) with free will, (b) beings that have no free will, (c) give them free will, but override their...

Is that really what you come out of the topic with?
The same tired "freewill" argument?

OK, let's go with that. Does God experience more relish from the act when his omniscience experiences the freewill-enabled violent penetration by the rapist? Does he like the power the rapist feels as he forces himself on the victim? Does he experience a masochistic rush when the victims' freewill is removed? Does he like the feeling of helplessness and frantic denial as they are violated?

If he didn't like it, why doesn't his omnipotence stop it?

What of the victims freewill? That means nothing? What is the currency here? The rapists freewill, or the victims?

Should YOU not stop a rape because it would violate the rapists' freewill?

As you can see, your position is very confusing.

[Willum]

...
If it were you or I witnessing this, and do nothing, what would that make us?
Deplorable monsters...

I think it could also mean we are cowards, or there could be even some other reasons for the actions. Without knowing all, it is actually difficult for me to judge God.

Do you have trouble judging anything else? A rape hypothetically occurs, an empowered voyeur does nothing - in each case, and there have been millions throughout history, how is this unable to be judged?

…
The only conclusion is that this god approves of these acts …

Sorry, I don’t think that is true, at least Bible doesn’t say so.

Obviously you are unfamiliar with your Bible: It has very clear passages governing rape,
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man meets a woman who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I imagine you want your daughter raped for a small fee (~$15 US), and she can live with her rapist forevermore? What an awesome God you worship! What a great father you'd be!

[Difflugia]

I think all humans begin with that same moral view. I think this shows morality to be objective. I have yet to see an atheistic worldview that can do as good a job in grounding that objectivity as theism can. It's not logically impossible, but I haven't personally seen a good case made (and will always be open to hearing one or more).

If you mean, as the apologists usually do, that an objective morality means one with a source external to humans, then beginning with the same moral view doesn't mean it's objective. Even if it's not a decision, it still stems from humanity.

We have lots of behaviors and judgements that fit the same pattern you describe with an instinctive default that can be overridden by conscious thought. It's a good thing they can be changed, because a lot of those patterns are heuristics that worked well in family groups on the savannah, but not so well in a modern society. In fact, I'd argue that's an easy way to know that the instinctive defaults are neither objective nor from God.

A sandwich on a small plate looks larger than the same sandwich on a big plate. People go broke playing slots or buying lottery tickets. Fat, sugar and salt taste better than fibrous and vitamin-rich foods, even when supplies aren't limited. These may be objective in the sense that we didn't choose our built in responses, but they're definitely not objective in the sense that the answer that feels right matches what is actually right.

Morality fits the same pattern. Things like revenge and jealousy feel like the right way to approach certain moral problems, but there are nearly always better answers. Tit-for-tat and aggressively chasing away rivals for a mate had advantages in a prehistoric setting, but the results are suboptimal within a civilization. Even when people try to codify those urges for some sort of consistency, the result is still pretty awful and you end up with Deuteronomy 22:13-21. If a girl gets married and later can't find a bloody sheet, then the solution is to throw stones at her crying face until she's dead. While her parents watch.

You claim that atheists don't have a better system. Here's one. It's still not the best, but it's objectively better than what's in the Bible. As a starting point, let's just follow all the rules in the Bible, but never throw stones at girls until they're dead. It'll still be pretty bad, but at least it will be better. Objectively.