Stephen T-B

Just to recap:
Normal wondered if I’d agree that god knew who would be mass murderers, who would be ruthless dictators, and who would be rapists? He asked: “Does this mean they are all exonerated?”

These are, of course, hypothetical questions for me since I don’t have to try accommodating the issues raised by the existence of gods. But the logical conclusion to be drawn when considering an omniscient god is that if he were perfectly just, he would not punish anyone because he would know we are what we are, and cannot be anything else. It’d be like punishing a slug because it leaves a slimy trail, or a lion because it preys on impala.

The principle that sane individuals are answerable for their actions is part of the same cultural bedrock which informs our ideas of divine punishment: Society seeks to punish wrong-doers; an all-knowing god does punish wrong doers.

This notion of crime and punishment assumes that all humans set off from the same moral starting line, and that subsequently some choose to commit crimes and some choose not to. But of course we know that in the real world, things are not as simple as that. We know that we do not all set off from the same moral starting line, and that the reasons one person commits crimes and another doesn’t are highly complex.
If we, in our state of ignorance, are aware of this, an omniscent god would have the complete picture.

The idea that an all-knowing entity should be constrained by our own primitive notions of Justice and Punishment is, frankly, ludicrous.

Normal

Do you not realize you just spit out the theistic "unknown purpose defense"?

Stephen T-B

Please excuse my ignorance, Normal, but I don't know what the "unknown purpose defense" is.

My use of "ludicrous," was a bit harsh, perhaps, but it seems quite obvious to me that our ideas of Justice and Punishment reflect our human responses to crime and those who commit them.
Why is a divine being assumed to share these human responses?

Boro Nut

I'm with normal on this one. When god throws a proper fit and threatens to massacre the bastards who trod on his holy of holies, but then doesn't, he is not impersonating a pathetic childish impotent peasant camel farmer. He is instead acting on principles so above the ken of mankind, that to our primitive unevolved eyes it only appears to be the actions of a pathetic impotent peasant camel farmer, and is in no way being childish. Perhaps one day he will kill himself, THEN you will all be sorry.

Boro Nut

Normal

You started the game of semantics by specifically seperating nihilists from the picture.

Normal

The "unknown purpose defense" basically says that humans can't know god, so humans can't say what god would do.

It's typically a theistic defense to the problem of evil, so I was surprised to see you use it now when your trying to disprove him.

To answer your last question, I guess we can only assume that god would have similar manners of justice to us.

Stephen T-B

Ah, but why?

Because we make God in our image, or because God made us in his?

You think - I hope you don't mind me making this assumption? - that the most reasonable answer to that question is that God made us in his image.

And you'll know (before I tell you) that I think the most reasonable answer is that we made god in ours.

Time and again in this discussion we come to sticking points where no progress is to be made because the Believer and the Unbeliever see things from completely different perspectives. And of course we both think our own perspective is the correct one. Indeed, the only valid one to have.

(I’m not sure if you are finding these exchanges instructive, but I am.)

Division By Zero

I disappear for a couple of days, and return to find this thread still going on.

I don't think it's necessary for me to keep arguing here, but I think the newest point has not yet been answered: If God providing evidence for his existence violates the free will of people who consider that evidence sufficient to believe, then why has he provided sufficient evidence for some people to believe?

When God created the universe and scattered evidence around in it, he knew that some people would find that evidence convincing and would believe in him. How has he not violated their free will?

Normal

But the difference is that we were created, this is a real fact. So the question becomes, by what force? By what force are we given the nature we are?

What do you mean by instructive?

Normal

I answered this in the same way that it is not a violation of your free will if god knows you will slap a guy for insulting you, and then the guy insults you, then you slap him. If you think that is a violation of free will, you will think my example is a violation of free will.