This morning I read an excerpt from David Hume’s God and Evil in which three men debate the existence of God. The men argue their points based on two assumptions: God is all-powerful, and God is all-good. That is, God has the power to do anything and God always does what is good. One character, Cleanthes, argues for the existence of God, stating that an omnibenevolent God is possible because the extent of human suffering is far outweighed by human pleasure; so God gives us more happiness in this lifetime than he does misery. Philos argues that God cannot exist because, he concludes, Cleanthes hypothesis is not only unable to be proven but likely the exact opposite of what is true. Based on the facts that God is all-good and all-powerful, and men are still plagued with any amount of misery at all, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God cannot exist because:
- We experience misery. So if God is all-power he is able to prevent misery, but not willing. Therefore he is not all-good (He is at least, in part, evil).
- We experience misery. So if God is all-good, it is His desire to prevent misery, but is not able. Therefore he is not all-powerful.
- We experience misery. So if God is all-good and all-powerful, why do we experience misery at all? The only obvious answer to this question is that our human perception of what is good is not the same as God’s.
Assume for the time being that we’re talking specifically about the Christian God (as it seems the characters in Hume’s writing are). God lays out in the Bible what is good for us, or in other words, what He considers right and wrong. However on occasion God himself orders these laws to be broken. He tests Abraham by asking him to offer his son Isaac as a human sacrifice. Though God stops Abraham at the last moment by providing a ram as a sacrifice instead, He ordered the killing of another human being in His name and Abraham would have listened. In this instance killing was the right thing for Abraham to do to prove his loyalty (according to God).
God doesn’t just command us to break his laws; He breaks them himself as well. He floods the Earth to destroy the wicked, not only breaking His commandment against killing, but rendering null and void the idea of hating the sin and not the sinner as well. If God can’t obey His own rules, why should we acknowledge them ourselves? Is God above his own laws; in other words, a hypocrite?
Previously we were left with a single possibility for the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God: in order for Him to exist his idea of right and wrong must be beyond our human comprehension. Let’s follow this train of thought through. If we cannot begin to comprehend God’s idea of what is right and wrong, then our morality must (unless purely by chance) not be the same as God’s. But (presumably) God gave us our morality! So we are left with two options:
1. Our views of good and evil are not based on God’s at all. In this case we cannot knowingly do what is good to God. We can only do what we think is good (what we perceive is God’s will), or ignore him altogether and pursue our own will. In either case we’re not necessarily doing what is right, rather we’re doing either His will or our own. We’re either free or a slave of our own perception of what God desires.
2. Our views of good and evil are a subset of God’s. We know some of God’s idea of what is good, but not all of it. However this possibility is contradictory. If our morality is a subset of God’s and He tells us that killing is evil, killing must be evil to God too. Since God is all-good (established previously), he cannot commit evil, but we already know that God kills (which he says is evil). So either God is not all-good, or our morality is not a subset of God’s.
So what are our choices? If possibility number one is correct we have either free will or slavery, not to God or what is right, but to our own idea of what is right to God. Watch the evening news if you’d like to see how that path turns out.
According to the second possibility we’re left with a God that is either not omnibenevolent or a God that gave us a morality incompatible with his own. A God that is not all-good breaks one of our philosophical requirements for being a god (omnipotence, omnibenevolence); in addition that god does not have our best interests in mind. What’s the point in worshipping a God that’s not concerned with your best interests? If you’re in a car accident and this god’s favorite team is playing ball on television, to which will he divert his attention?
A god that gives his people a morality incompatible with his own is a confusing possibility. Even when his believers do right by following the morality that He gave them, they’re still not doing what is truly right because their ideas of good are incompatible. We’re still talking about the Christian God, mind you, and if you don’t follow His way you are punished with eternal damnation. If you ignore the morality he has given you and follow your own free will, you’ll go to Hell. If you do choose to follow the morality that He gave you, you’re still not doing what’s truly right, and you’ll probably go to Hell. I’m guessing this god has some sort of deal with the devil to keep him stocked with fresh souls.
In the end you can either do what you think is right to God but isn’t, do what is right for a God that isn’t good, do what God tells you is good but isn’t, or follow your own free will. I’d wager that each of these paths is equally likely to send one straight to Hell and Damnation. Which will you choose?
February 27th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
dear mr ninja man, i can tell this whole got thing does bother you deep down
“He floods the Earth to destroy the wicked”
you see the fact of the matter is we don’t know if there is a god or not, sure its nice beleive that there is something after life on earth but when it comes right down do it……we don’t know, now as for the comment you posted on your blog and i reposted above.. humans have been looking for “reasons” since the beginning of our time. sure may people like to beleive that a god would punich out the sinners by killing them off with a great flood
“He floods the Earth to destroy the wicked”
some ppl are really really really into god and dedicate their lives to god……. maybe people are not as smart as we think we are, maybe the answer is right in front of us……….but the people who follow god on a severe basis a.k.a bible thumpers maybe thats just and easy way to understand the destruction the earth brings us for example:
Greek gods, those dumb fucks had a god for everything i mean if something bad happened oh the god of ball is pissed at the chinese so he gave them small cocks…..no! Noah’s flood, this earth is unstable although everything on it as addapted to it…..hence the existance every living creature. im sure there was a large flood long time ago…and the way of understanding it was by saying “god was cleansing man of his sins” ok thats just dumb………and the funny part about it is people believe this….. moral of the story: we don’t know if there is a god and there is no way to find out(unless jesus makes another apearence) lol we will call it Jesus part two. JC2 for short! while im on a roll lets talk logic! if jesus really did come why didn’t he just float on air and say listen its true i do exist i mean if moses can part water then jesus of all people should be able to prove his existance but noooooooo some stupid ppl had to beleive he had magical powers but yet he failed to prove to all the other people who where unalbe to see him heal people in person so now its there fault they don’t beleive in him so they must burn in hell for eternity. why would we have to live our lives to praise one man? sounds like a power trip to me! Its like human life is all one big game to god!…..well i don’t buy it not saying there isn’t a god but i hope when my time comes if there is a god he is “as good” as the article you wrote says and is understanding that its not our fault we don’t beleive in soemthing that we don’t know anything about……keep up the blogs, u always have interesting reads
-MrUnknown
February 28th, 2006 at 7:32 am
Wow. That is one lengthy comment! First of all thanks for the compliment. So long as a few people keep reading, I’ll pretend my opinion matters and keep writing!
In response to your comment: since the beginning of time humans have been creating gods to explain the gaps in their understanding of the world. With modern science we need God to explain less and less. Now here’s a question for you: if one is to believe that God truley did flood the earth to destroy the wicked (and that he was right in doing so), shouldn’t one agree with the terrorists waging jihand against the western world? They kill the wicked too, so they say. Explaining the chaotic behavior of the Earth by attributing it to God is a sure-fire way to shake your faith in His benevolence.
If you didn’t gather from what I wrote above I’m borderline athiest: I’m quite sure that there is no God, and if there is he isn’t worth my worship and I’d deny him anyway. What I wrote is a philosophical and logical approach to what I’ve believed most of my adult life.
When I went to church as a child I learned all about what is good to God, how he wants us to behave, and how he wants us to treat each other. I don’t disagree and won’t question Christian morality; but I question wether they worship a god that is compatible with it; I question wether they worship a god that is truley all good, all knowing, and all powerful.
Deep down I want someone to prove to me that there is a god. I’m no different from anyone else in that I want something to believe in and give my life meaning. However wether by evolution or by design I’m here as a logical being. I have no faith, only reason. If God exists then He created me as a logical being and gave me no way to reason that he exists, thus God does not want my worship.
I’ll end on a simple proof I read earlier today. Its similar to something skeptics have been doing for years, only again put logically:
This proof presumes one more thing about the nature of God: that he is worth our worship. Pray to God that He gives you proof of his existance within a week. If God does give you this proof, email me immediately so I can change my evil ways! If he doesn’t, there are two possibilities. Either God is able and not willing and does not want your worship, or God is willing and not able and so is not all-powerful. Regardless, since God must be all-powerful and worth our worship, either possibility means that God does not exist.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Ninja man,
Your wisdom is beyond most peoples understanding, and that my friend is why you are smarter than them……….your like a miniature Buda covered in hair (w/out the hair part). Reason I read your blogs are because I find myself in the same position often, wondering why! At the same time you have also positioned yourself in a borderline position and not falling into a wrong “belief”.
You say you are “borderline” atheist and this would make complete sense to me. If you were atheist you would believe there is no god. As I mentioned above WE DON’T KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD. We just don’t know! Hence, you are being “borderline”.
As I was a young MrUnknown growing up I was about 6 years old when my first pastor asked my family where we were last week looking at me and saying “if you don’t go to church your going to burn in hell for eternity” I know you may not believe me on that.. but its true, take it or leave it. Growing up as my brain which is obviously smarter than the average man matured I let logic and basic fact guide me to my current beliefs.
Deism (n): Belief in God as revealed by nature and reason combined with a belief that our god is distant and disconnected from us.
A deeper explanation is god created us and left. Not sure how much history you know, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ben Franklin, ect . . . the list goes on and on of people who believed in this. Now books you read will counter this saying they were Christian or something but its not true.
(I don’t believe in this just wanted to bring it to your attention)
To answer your question: “Now here’s a question for you: if one is to believe that God truly did flood the earth to destroy the wicked (and that he was right in doing so), shouldn’t one agree with the terrorists waging jihad against the western world?”
Your are comparing a GOD who wages WAR against his own people to clean out the wicked(sinners), to a group of “humans” who believe in a radical belief that killing certain people who have different beliefs is what “god wants” and to them we are sinners. Am I correct here?
YES, you are right then. In which would make god………..all good……no! they can come up with a million excuses but when it comes down to it……god is flawed, not all that is good, or just evil.
-Mr.Unkown
February 28th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
I’m beginning to get curious as to wether or not you are someone that I’ve met outside of the Internet. I’ve tracked your IP address as far as a Verizon DSL server in Scranton, but the trail ends there. So for the time being, you remain anonymous, Mr. Unknown
First off, I caught the Anchorman reference. This is one of the reasons I think I know you; my friends quote that movie constantly.
Second, I think you’re on the right track with deism, so long as you can commit to genuinely seeking a rational basis for religion. A deist may use the First Cause argument for God’s existance. The laws of physics tell us that everything has a cause: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. They will argue that in the beginning there must be something uncaused that caused the world to be created, and that cause, they say, is God.
Here’s the problem in that logic: if everything must have a cause, what caused God? Who created God? “Well, he is, always has been, and always will be.” Well if God doesn’t need a cause, then why does the creation of the Universe? That argument really doesn’t get us anywhere.
A deist may also argue in defense of the design argumentl; that is, design as in intelligent design. They will say that life is too complex to have occured randomly, and so it must have been designed by an intelligent being. I won’t waste your time debating it here, but I’ll point you to an old post I wrote on the subject. Suffice it to say that the so-called theory of intelligent design, in my opinion, is without merit. Its simply creationism repackaged for consumption by a scientific-minded world.
My point is this: deism is a terrific ideology so long as one can tell the difference between a rational argument and pseudo science.
Thirdly, your comment about the pastor you had as a child warrents a few words. I respect anyone who is willing to defend their beliefs, regardless of how much I disagree with them. That includes the clergy. But a pastor that tells a little boy that he will go to Hell if he doesn’t go to church each and every Sunday is a scumbag, flat-out. Do you really think that pastor has your soul’s best interest in mind? He wants his pews filled. He’ll make you a Christian in title only. He doesn’t care if you love Jesus or fear God, either one is just as good. He doesn’t create a truth seeker. He creates an individual too afraid to have his own opinions. He is a fearmonger and a scumbag.
And Finally… you are absolutely right: I was comparing God to an Islamic terrorist. I need to correct you on one point though: God doesn’t wage war against his own people. Wars have two sides fighting against each other. If God (who is all-knowing and all-powerful) chose to wage war with us, there would be no war. Assuming God is out there and controls life and death, his choice of who to kill and how seems just as arbitrary as a man that sneaks into a wedding and detonates his jacket of C4. Terrorists take their god literally and follow his example. The God that they follow is a coward that kills the innocent. I’d say the Christian god is too; what makes Christians and Muslims act so diametrically opposite, I’ve got no idea.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Well I am not from Scranton, I -will tell you that I’m right from Bloomsburg. I do know you indirectly, but for this reason it is best I remain MrUnknown.
One could compare an Iranian Nuke bomb being placed in NYC, God Creating a Huge tsunami to destroy a village to cleanse it from sin………..as acts of war……..man trying to defend themselves and trying to survive the tsunami could be a defensive strategy to Gods acts of war, trying to find ways through science to better prepare for these large scale events………..making both parties involved titling it WAR………….
There is no need to beat a dead horse so I will end this debate here, these Bloomsburg bars are calling my name…….. so until the next time one of your topics lights a spark under my ass and makes me go off . . .
-MrUnknown
February 28th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
The combination of your your town, your MySpace profile, and your writing style gives you up (I read people’s blogs too). But until I see you at one of those Bloomsburg bars we’ll leave you be Mr. Unknown. I’ve gotta say, it’s interesting hearing from you directly, and not through a certain third party.
As for what you said in your last comment, I see definately see your point. You’re looking at the nature of life on this planet (dangerous, chaotic) versus our ability to tame and master our environment. You could say that we wage war against God by pursuing science. I think that’s the underpinnings of the religious right’s fight against Darwinism. I suppose this isn’t a problem for them since they aren’t willing to give science it’s moment in the spotlight. It’s a problem for those of us who want the truth, regardless of the outcome. Unfortunately it’s a struggle that has less to do with truth and more to do with a possible threat to their god. The problem is that, until we prove that God does or does not exist, we’ll never know if we’re “waging war” against God or simply learning about our world. So do we ignore the all-too-human desire to master our world to protect our gods, or do we enduldge and becomes gods ourselves?
I’m sure I’ll read something tomorrow that fires me back up, so check back soon. And until then, you stay classy San Diago.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:22 am
my,my,my….what a tangled web we weave.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:33 am
Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
..i thought this seemed fitting.