Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bd-from-kg · 03-12-2002, 06:50 AM

In this thread I want to consider how it can be just for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God to punish anyone.

While the argument applies to any choice, it’s simpler (and gets immediately to the point) to apply it to the one crucial choice – the choice to accept or reject God. By this I mean the decision (whatever its exact nature) which ultimately determines whether one enjoys eternal bliss. Also, in this context, by God’s “punishing” someone I mean withholding from him the gift of eternal bliss.

Now let’s consider Smith, who has chosen to reject God. It seems to me that there are three possibilities:

(1) If Smith had been subject to different environmental influences, he would not have rejected God. But God knew that, and chose to subject Smith to the environmental influences that he actually experienced. In so choosing, He determined that Smith would reject Him. In this case, how can it be just for God to punish Smith for doing something that He is responsible for?

(2) Smith would have rejected God no matter what environmental influences he might have been subject to. In other words, it was “in his nature” to reject God, and nothing could have changed this. But God, as Smith’s Creator, is obviously responsible for Smith’s innate nature. By making Smith the kind of person he was, He is responsible for Smith’s rejecting Him. So once again, how can it be just for God to punish Smith for something that God is responsible for?

(3) Smith might have accepted God even given the same inner nature and the exact same environmental influences. But this entails that at some point Smith made a choice such that he might have chosen differently given the exact same situation and the exact same “internal state” (i.e., the same character, disposition, transient impulses, fleeting thoughts, immediate perceptions, etc.) that he in fact had at that moment. And moreover, his choice to reject God must have been traceable to one or more such choices – i.e., choices such that he might have chosen differently under the exact same circumstances. But in what sense can such choices be said to have been Smith’s choices? If he truly might have chosen differently, nothing about Smith could have been responsible for the choice he made. Such a choice by definition has no cause; it is purely random. One might say metaphorically that Smith’s choice was a product of a cosmic roll of the dice. But how can it be just for God to punish Smith for the outcome of a cosmic roll of the dice?

In all of these cases it seems clear that it would be unjust for God to punish Smith. But these cases essentially exhaust the logical possibilities. And of course, “Smith” might be anyone. So it follows that it would be unjust for an “omnimax” God to punish anyone under any conditions.

Jayhawker Soule · 03-12-2002, 07:38 AM

Where the heck did you get "omnibenevolent"? In fact, he was 'omninotverynice', not to mention 'omniunfairashell'. See, for example:

Quote:

Exodus 4:21:
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

The old guy stacked the deck, probably because he couldn't bare the possibility of all those plagues going unused.

On a more formal note, I'm not sure what threads such as this hope to accomplish or divulge.

Webster defines justice as "the maintenance or administration of that which is just", and Judeo-Christians would almost certainly equate "that which is just" and "God's will". With that as a foundation, "Divine injustice" becomes something akin to an oxymoron.

Out of curiosity, where in the Torah does JHWH assert that he is just, benevolent, or honest?

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

eh · 03-12-2002, 08:48 AM

Ahh but you see the Christian god has a different version of justice than us. You see, it is some kind of higher justice that doesn't even remotely resemble the concept we live with in society. You might wonder why they use the word justice at all in that case, what with words like 'hocus pocus' and 'ooga booga' making just as much sense. The trouble is, xians are already using those words to defend their theology.

Jamie_L · 03-12-2002, 08:55 AM

To be complete, one should offer:

Option 1a:
Satan influences the environment which shapes Smith. But, God created Satan, right? And God knew what Satan would do, right? And if Smith accepts Satan over God, that's something defective in Smith's nature, which we cover in Option 2.

Jamie

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-12-2002, 09:03 AM

Most Christians will try to escape the paradox by claiming "Smith had free will", but when pressed, will admit that God, being omniscient, will know ahead of time what Smith will do. (Thereby proving Smith did not have free will, as such.)

Jeff

bd-from-kg · 03-12-2002, 09:29 AM

ReasonableDoubt and eh:

My point is not about the being depicted in the Bible, but about a hypothetical being with certain of the attributes generally ascribed to God. It has nothing to do with Christianity as such. The argument is basically that these attributes are logically incompatible.

Perhaps this also answers RD’s question about what this thread “hopes to accomplish” (and why I posted it in the “Existence of God” forum).

Jamie_L:

So far as I can see, it doesn’t matter (to the argument) who or what influences Smith’s environment.

Not Prince Hamlet:

The “free will defence” in its usual form is covered by (3). Of course, there are some who use the term “free will” to refer to something which is compatible with determinism. But I don’t see how this kind of “free will” gets around the problem posed by (1) and (2).

To all:

I have to do some other stuff for the next few hours. Keep the comments coming; I’ll try to reply to all substantive points.

Jamie_L · 03-12-2002, 10:15 AM

I wonder why the religions with one big God are so popular. It seems that a religion with at least 2 Gods - one evil and one good, both with relatively equal power (or maybe the evil one with more power) makes much more sense in terms of the world we observe. The whole problem of the OP has to do with reconciling the world with the notion of an omni-everything (omni-omni?) type god.

And the reason I submitted my option 1a is that I'm sure some xian would offer that defense. "God didn't do it. Satan did it." But, trace it back far enough, and it's the same thing, as you point out.

Jamie

Jayhawker Soule · 03-12-2002, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bd-from-kg:
It has nothing to do with Christianity as such. The argument is basically that these attributes are logically incompatible.

OK. And I repeat: divine injustice is an oxymoron. But what is the intent of arguing the logical incompatibility of some arbitrary set of attributes of a hypothetical deity?

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

03-12-2002, 12:13 PM

I always thought that if God is just we are in charge of God.

The same is true with our justice system in which we are in charge of the Judge when we supply the relevant data surounding the trial.

ShottleBop · 03-12-2002, 02:45 PM

ReasonableDoubt, these are the closest I could come up with, using Biblegateway:

Exodus 22:27:

Quote:

because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.

Exodus 34:4-7

Quote:

4 So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the Lord had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. 5 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord . 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The Lord , the Lord , the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

That last sentence, of course, gives one pause.

03-12-2002, 06:50 AM	#1
bd-from-kg Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: King George, VA Posts: 1,400	The injustice of Divine punishment In this thread I want to consider how it can be just for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God to punish anyone. While the argument applies to any choice, it’s simpler (and gets immediately to the point) to apply it to the one crucial choice – the choice to accept or reject God. By this I mean the decision (whatever its exact nature) which ultimately determines whether one enjoys eternal bliss. Also, in this context, by God’s “punishing” someone I mean withholding from him the gift of eternal bliss. Now let’s consider Smith, who has chosen to reject God. It seems to me that there are three possibilities: (1) If Smith had been subject to different environmental influences, he would not have rejected God. But God knew that, and chose to subject Smith to the environmental influences that he actually experienced. In so choosing, He determined that Smith would reject Him. In this case, how can it be just for God to punish Smith for doing something that He is responsible for? (2) Smith would have rejected God no matter what environmental influences he might have been subject to. In other words, it was “in his nature” to reject God, and nothing could have changed this. But God, as Smith’s Creator, is obviously responsible for Smith’s innate nature. By making Smith the kind of person he was, He is responsible for Smith’s rejecting Him. So once again, how can it be just for God to punish Smith for something that God is responsible for? (3) Smith might have accepted God even given the same inner nature and the exact same environmental influences. But this entails that at some point Smith made a choice such that he might have chosen differently given the exact same situation and the exact same “internal state” (i.e., the same character, disposition, transient impulses, fleeting thoughts, immediate perceptions, etc.) that he in fact had at that moment. And moreover, his choice to reject God must have been traceable to one or more such choices – i.e., choices such that he might have chosen differently under the exact same circumstances. But in what sense can such choices be said to have been Smith’s choices? If he truly might have chosen differently, nothing about Smith could have been responsible for the choice he made. Such a choice by definition has no cause; it is purely random. One might say metaphorically that Smith’s choice was a product of a cosmic roll of the dice. But how can it be just for God to punish Smith for the outcome of a cosmic roll of the dice? In all of these cases it seems clear that it would be unjust for God to punish Smith. But these cases essentially exhaust the logical possibilities. And of course, “Smith” might be anyone. So it follows that it would be unjust for an “omnimax” God to punish anyone under any conditions.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2002, 08:48 AM	#3
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	Ahh but you see the Christian god has a different version of justice than us. You see, it is some kind of higher justice that doesn't even remotely resemble the concept we live with in society. You might wonder why they use the word justice at all in that case, what with words like 'hocus pocus' and 'ooga booga' making just as much sense. The trouble is, xians are already using those words to defend their theology.

03-12-2002, 08:55 AM	#4
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	To be complete, one should offer: Option 1a: Satan influences the environment which shapes Smith. But, God created Satan, right? And God knew what Satan would do, right? And if Smith accepts Satan over God, that's something defective in Smith's nature, which we cover in Option 2. Jamie

03-12-2002, 09:03 AM	#5
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	Most Christians will try to escape the paradox by claiming "Smith had free will", but when pressed, will admit that God, being omniscient, will know ahead of time what Smith will do. (Thereby proving Smith did not have free will, as such.) Jeff

03-12-2002, 09:29 AM	#6
bd-from-kg Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: King George, VA Posts: 1,400	ReasonableDoubt and eh: My point is not about the being depicted in the Bible, but about a hypothetical being with certain of the attributes generally ascribed to God. It has nothing to do with Christianity as such. The argument is basically that these attributes are logically incompatible. Perhaps this also answers RD’s question about what this thread “hopes to accomplish” (and why I posted it in the “Existence of God” forum). Jamie_L: So far as I can see, it doesn’t matter (to the argument) who or what influences Smith’s environment. Not Prince Hamlet: The “free will defence” in its usual form is covered by (3). Of course, there are some who use the term “free will” to refer to something which is compatible with determinism. But I don’t see how this kind of “free will” gets around the problem posed by (1) and (2). To all: I have to do some other stuff for the next few hours. Keep the comments coming; I’ll try to reply to all substantive points.

03-12-2002, 10:15 AM	#7
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	I wonder why the religions with one big God are so popular. It seems that a religion with at least 2 Gods - one evil and one good, both with relatively equal power (or maybe the evil one with more power) makes much more sense in terms of the world we observe. The whole problem of the OP has to do with reconciling the world with the notion of an omni-everything (omni-omni?) type god. And the reason I submitted my option 1a is that I'm sure some xian would offer that defense. "God didn't do it. Satan did it." But, trace it back far enough, and it's the same thing, as you point out. Jamie

03-12-2002, 12:13 PM	#9
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	I always thought that if God is just we are in charge of God. The same is true with our justice system in which we are in charge of the Judge when we supply the relevant data surounding the trial.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.