On May 3, 8:22 pm, Bridge <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 3, 3:33 pm, xeno <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 2, 4:17 pm, Bridge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So I'm an accomplice to anything I've created with knowledge of its > > > > > actions? > > > > > You're an accomplice to anything you've created knowing the > > > > consequences of doing so. > > > > So the condemnation of God comes from his omniscience? > > > If you let the big bad dog into the yard knowing it'll bite the baby, > > you're an accomplice to the act. > > What if you were the vet that delivered the puppies? Dogs have been > known to bite.
You mean, what if you were a psychic, omniscient, omnipotent vet who delivered the puppies? Yes, you would be guilty of knowing that your actions would result in a dog bite, and that it was fully in your control to prevent it. > > > > If he just created it and then let it go have choice, he'd be clean. > > > But he's responsible if he knows what would happen. > > Got it. What if he knows that a hard life is going to drive me to save > a million babies from dogs in backyards? The kind of omniscient, omnipotent creator for whom the ends justified the means would be cruel, because he can always accomplish things in other ways. He never needs good ends to justify his evil means, because he's omnipotent. He could always find a way to use good means and achieve good ends. There would be no need for things to "balance" in the end. He could make things good all the way along. Instead of making you suffer to build your character, he could just make you have a good character in the first place. I realize it's a little idealistic and abstract, but it's the reasonable conclusion from the kind of idealistic claims made in the stories about the Christian God. > > > If anything bad happens at all then God's responsible? > > > Like, yeah. Creation is an act. God would be responsible for creating > > things if that's what gods do. & if creating things result in bad > > things happening then god is responsible along with everybody else & > > everything else involved. > > What if the aggregate good is higher than the aggregate bad? What if > bad and good are our interpretations? Then it would go against other claims attributed to the Christian God. We could talk about a fallible or limited god, maybe not omniscient or omnipotent. I wrote a short story about a creator who accidentally creates the universe and humans, who can't communicate with them very clearly (or maybe they can't understand him very clearly). Hijinks and hilarity ensue. If he were limited, then we could yell at him for setting things in motion that he didn't know the consequences of, but we might not consider him cruel or evil like an omniscient, omnipotent being that took actions resulting in evil and suffering and sin. > Is it bad when a lion eats a baby monkey? No. A lion is not omniscient or omnipotent, so we don't think of it's behaviors in the same way we would about the Christian God. > > > Is it one strike and He's out? > > > If not then a double standard is being applied. > > I don't see how. If the standard for God, let's use Christianity > specifically, and Jesus is "I forgive you", how does it follow that > one strike and you're out is a double standard? LOL. Because "I forgive you" is one of the many revolving standards that Christians choose from. There are many messages in the Bible to pick and choose from. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
