[Updated] A Modern Challenge on the Morality of God

AX: God Exists and Is the One Creator. We have free-will.

REVISED OP (25 October 2011) – As simple as I can make it.
A) Problem of Evil: Evil exists, thus we question the morality of the potential (axiom) creator.
B) Counter: Evil is necessary so that we may understand what happiness is. We cannot experience happiness without its opposite/lack thereof. It is required.
A) Counter: Evil is only necessary because God designed it to be necessary. If God made all things then it follows that God made happiness DEPEND upon suffering, which is what the above (B) Counter) is arguing. What prevented God from designing a world that did not require this conclusion?

To put it another way:

1. God made a world that requires suffering to KNOW happiness.
2. God is assumed to have CREATED this world.
3. Based upon point (2), I assume that God is ABLE to create ANY world.
4. God is assumed to have DESIGNED point (1): ‘a world where suffering is required’.
5. God is therefore assumed to be able to CREATE a world where points 1 and 4 are NOT true.
6. Suffering is evil.
7. God COULD have avoided evil altogether, by creating a world that is opposite to points 1 and 4.
8. God did NOT create a world void of Evil.
9. God is evil.

Simply: As God created Evil where Evil was, by capabilities, unnecessary, God is evil.

ORIGINAL OP
I know I bang on about free-will vs. determinism, and I know that I’ve already touched upon this issue, but I’d like to hear further opinions. My argument can take the form of this analogy;

Before you stands the greatest inventor of all time. He has built literally every single machine that has been demanded of him to perfection. You are one of the lucky few who will be allowed to ask him for a machine of your choosing. You simply say; “I want a machine that can give me ultimate pleasure, happiness, satisfaction and love.” (slightly hedonistic, with a good reason to be)

In just one month, the inventor shows you the machine. He offers it to you as a gift, but warns;
“To use this machine, you must first cut off your own arm, along with the arm of your brother.”
In shock, you ask why on earth is this necessary!
“Its not, I just added it in.”
You then ask why. You don’t receive an answer.

If you have not gathered, this analogy represents the secular counter to the theistic argument of the existence of free-will to justify the existence of suffering. The argument, in short, goes like this;

Free-will was created by God so that we may have a choice. Unfortunately, a side-effect of this is the freedom to choose rebellious things. As a result, suffering exists because of our own free-will.

Ok, fair enough. However, free-will is of Gods design. The concept of free-will was given to us by God, and therefore we are back to square one. Why would a moral God create something if its result was suffering? Presuming God is all powerful, free-will does not necessarily require hell. Our logic was designed by God, and therefore God can shape it.

Why invent a world where pleasure is possible, but only at the sacrifice of yourself and others?

Because God is malevolent. Satan is actually the good one, but he is less powerful than God so he’s now stuck in Hell and all we got was God’s version of the history of the universe – in which he is actually the good one.

Originally posted by MamboJambo:

Because God is malevolent. Satan is actually the good one, but he is less powerful than God so he’s now stuck in Hell and all we got was God’s version of the history of the universe – in which he is actually the good one.

If God is malevolent, he should kill me if I cure him. Is he just kind of a dick, a sort of Loki-type figure, or what?

Why is pleasure only possible at the sacrifice of yourself and others? Might pleasure and suffering be equally possible outcomes of free-will, rather than the one depending on the other? Or let’s suppose they do go hand-in-hand, might that be because we can only understand sensation, be it pleasure or suffering, if there is something to compare it to? Hence it needs to be a matter of degree, rather than an absolute value.

Everything you just said has been defined by God. I am asking WHY this world of suffering exists.

Originally posted by NickWalker12:

Everything you just said has been defined by God. I am asking WHY this world of suffering exists.

For the reason I just described: that living creatures cannot understand absolute sensations. They need to be diluted otherwise they are inscrutable. This is the essence of relativism.

The real consequence of free will isn’t the existence of suffering, but unequal suffering. Meaning that the North American capitalist ‘suffers’ when a business deal goes sour (lack of profit), while a Sudanese kid gets ripped to pieces by janjahweed militia. Why can’t God mete out suffering in doses rather than allowing it to spread uncontrolled? Why can’t the universe behave more like a communist model rather than a free market? Why do we even need to ask these questions when God can answer them more comprehensively than we can guess? To that extent, why can’t God make himself manifest in modern times, where advances in telecommunications would spread the proof of his power in a matter of days, rather than one time 2000 years ago in the desert?

Like I said, your first statement is a consequence of a designed reality (assuming God exists, and that it created the world). The point you presented is missing the core problem here. If God is all powerful, then suffering is a design. Why has it been designed that way?

And, because some people wont listen to what you just said.

@OP It’s easy to answer the question. The world wasn’t invented by any divine being. It was simply the result of dust particles gravitationally attracting each other and accumulating over millions of years. Also, you can have pleasure without sacrificing anybody.

For instance, Bob plays a game on Kongregate. He sucks at it, but he still enjoys playing it and isn’t bothered the slightest on how good he actually is. Because he’s bad at it, nobody has to worry about him taking the high score.

See?

AX: Christianity is true
^shoulda ben maked

Because, assuming God exists, he is not omnipotent and omniscient, neither is he omnibenevolent (the latter is perhaps debatable, but it’s easier to leave it out).

>debatable
>

Originally posted by MamboJambo:

AX: Christianity is true
^shoulda ben maked

Then this discussion is pure fantasy, and is thus unworthy of discussion in the SD forum.

Pure fantasy in which people believe, thus making it so it has a heavy impact in the society we live in.
i.e. it’s worthy (just as much as HP)

Originally posted by MamboJambo:

Pure fantasy in which people believe, thus making it so it has a heavy impact in the society we live in.
i.e. it’s worthy (just as much as HP)

Hit points? What do those have to do with anything?

Originally posted by Beryllium8:

Originally posted by MamboJambo:

Pure fantasy in which people believe, thus making it so it has a heavy impact in the society we live in.
i.e. it’s worthy (just as much as HP)

Hit points? What do those have to do with anything?

Harry Potter, I think.

hewlett packard harry potter

I’ve added the ax. More on topic anyone?

Originally posted by Winnabago:

Originally posted by Beryllium8:

Originally posted by MamboJambo:

Pure fantasy in which people believe, thus making it so it has a heavy impact in the society we live in.
i.e. it’s worthy (just as much as HP)

Hit points? What do those have to do with anything?

Harry Potter, I think.

We don’t discuss Harry Potter in SD.

Exactly. I don’t think religion should be discussed here.
I’m just messing with your stupidity.

Eugh. I get it this is not for everyone, but philosophy is a valid topic of discussion.

Originally posted by NickWalker12:

Like I said, your first statement is a consequence of a designed reality (assuming God exists, and that it created the world). The point you presented is missing the core problem here. If God is all powerful, then suffering is a design. Why has it been designed that way?

And, because some people wont listen to what you just said.

Basically, if we assume that its a design, it is in the hope of a desired end result. The same as when you plant seeds in the ground, and talk to the young plants (preach to them from on high) you’re looking out for their benefit, but its not actually them you care about – its the fruit they produce in the end.

Same with this world. If it was designed by a god, then the purpose is to bear fruit in the long run. Humans are just the seed – not the product. Intention is to cultivate something that cannot be just created, but must be grown. As to what that is, that could be anything from a soul battery, to entertainment, to what might eventually become a partner.

You guys can say whatever you want about religion, but there are people, in fact, a very considerable amount of society, that based its entire life on it, and in fact, some centuries ago, Europe laws were based almost entirely on it. So, it seems to me that religion have enough of a impact in society to be, indeed, considered a serious discussion. If their belief is justified or not, it is not what this thread is about.

tl, dr: If you want to discuss if there is a God or not, find another topic for it.

tl, dr: If you want to discuss if there is a God or not, find another topic for it.

Actually, the conclusion of this thread has implications about God’s existence. If God’s existence implies a contradiction, then God can’t exist. This entire thread is an attempted reductio of God’s existence.

However, free-will is of Gods design. The concept of free-will was given to us by God, and therefore we are back to square one. Why would a moral God create something if its result was suffering? Presuming God is all powerful, free-will does not necessarily require hell. Our logic was designed by God, and therefore God can shape it.

I don’t find this paragraph that well integrated. What are you trying to get at?

Our logic was designed by God, and therefore God can shape it.

I may have a problem with this statement, depending on what you mean by it. Please elaborate.

Presuming God is all powerful, free-will does not necessarily require hell.

This is pointing to the problem of hell. OK then. But this then just becomes a whole redo of the Problem of Evil – why does there have to be evil in the world?

Why invent a world where pleasure is possible, but only at the sacrifice of yourself and others?

How exactly did you arrive at this conclusion???

What do you expect? That God gives you ultimate pleasure without anything in return? That’s not how it works, because everyone would start asking for it and nobody would do any work.

Give and take. Give sacrifice, take pleasure.

I think it’s dangerous to assume that the biggest picture of life is better in absence of suffering, or at least the possibility of suffering.