if christian god existed, would he be a cruel god?

@clousems said in #219:

That's not what I'm asking for proof of. You asserted that the amount of good on Earth is exceeded by the bad.

The amount of needless suffering definitely outweighs the good, just through the mechanism of killing for food. Just considering humans, there’s many times more animals (which can experience suffering) than humans brought to a violent death per year. Let alone the suffering that animals inflict on each other. Why is this needless in the context of this argument? Because god could have created a universe without it, or else he’s not all powerful.

Another way to look at this argument is to frame god like an alien being from Star Trek. Let’s say that in a solar system far away, this god alien invented one world identical to this one, one “heaven” world, and one “hell” world. Not only did this alien create a copy of our world with needless suffering, but they subjugate the people on that world to worship, and if they don’t worship the being they get sent to the torture world of hell (despite following all of the other alien’s ethical codes). This being is objectively evil.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #221:

The amount of needless suffering definitely outweighs the good, just through the mechanism of killing for food.

This is still not a wholly rational argument. You are making an assertion (evil>good), but your evidence doesn't necessarily back it up-- it just proves that there is evil in the world. The evidence in my earlier claim-- i.e., that people must believe life to be worth living, which would only occur if they perceived that life had positive value-- is certainly not strong evidence, but it is counterevidence for your claim nonetheless.

The point of this is not to say that my view is more sound than yours, though (if that was my goal, I could easily end this debate by saying "Christianity teaches that God is not cruel; therefore, supposing a Christian god, he would not be cruel")-- it's just to say that a cynical view of a Christian god is not the only view that makes sense.

@clousems said in #222:

This is still not a wholly rational argument. You are making an assertion (evil>good), but your evidence doesn't necessarily back it up-- it just proves that there is evil in the world. The evidence in my earlier claim-- i.e., that people must believe life to be worth living, which would only occur if they perceived that life had positive value-- is certainly not strong evidence, but it is counterevidence for your claim nonetheless.

The point of this is not to say that my view is more sound than yours, though (if that was my goal, I could easily end this debate by saying "Christianity teaches that God is not cruel; therefore, supposing a Christian god, he would not be cruel")-- it's just to say that a cynical view of a Christian god is not the only view that makes sense.

Evil in the world existing at all is enough for this argument - If god was omnipotent, they could create a universe where people could still believe life is worth living without the existence of suffering. Hence god allows unnecessary suffering, and god is cruel.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #223:

Evil in the world existing at all is enough for this argument - If god was omnipotent, they could create a universe where people could still believe life is worth living without the existence of suffering. Hence god allows unnecessary suffering, and god is cruel.

What makes you think that this isn't the case?

Again, such a universe can't exist with a roommate who enjoys breaking things. (here)
It's quite likely that we're here to concede this point and to vow obedience to His way of doing things. (there)

Again, the idea that we're debating God is highly likely, as it is obvious that this is the case.

The idea that we're attempting to make our argument for how "Life can/should exist outside of Perfect Life/Perfect Love" is fairly clear.

The idea that our argument is incorrect, is probably what needs to be conceded before life within the context that we'd all, obviously, prefer, is completely probable.

'If it's not love, it's garbage.'

This is all that I hear you saying, Sleepy_Gary...

And it's most likely that we're here to make this very statement and to chisel it onto our hearts.

@Resurrection_of_Abel said

"I'd posit that it's actually a mere side-effect, and is actually an attribute of everything which is bending to His Meaning, His Will, and His Person, which is simply 'Perfect Love'."

"If God were to exist within this universal locale with these attributes, namely being Perfect Love, Life, Truth, Innocence...with the side effects of what looks like, from our perspective, being 'all powerful/knowing/loving', then nobody would ever have chosen to break their partner's trust, and infidelity would be no more than a matter of hypothetical science-fiction, as all, here, would reflect only Him."

"It has no weight, it has no colour, it has no obvious history, it has no obvious time span where it began to exist, and it has no obvious locale where it exists and where it then ceases to exist."

I will try to avoid writing a novel but apologies in advance.

I think most people, even many atheists could agree with this. If we simply remove the word, "God" from this then many schools of philosophy would agree that there is a Perfect Conception. i.e. Plato's Theory of Forms or the Tao. I'm certainly not opposed to this, and if someone would like to call this God I'm further less opposed to this religion compared to most others as I'm sure few bad ideas would come out of it.

Though, this is not the title of the post. To the average Christian, God is very much an actionable entity that roams the earth like in Jesus healing the sick and feeding the hungry. Or perhaps God is having an on an off day smiting Sodomites and drowning heathens. If the Bible is taken literally (to say otherwise is to stray from the generic Christian conception of God) then we have a problem which can be very succinctly put in a moment in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Here an earthquake slaughters several saints in the middle of worship. They then flee to the coast and get destroyed by a tsunami. The candles lit in the Christian God's name are disturbed and create a giant firestorm that asphyxiates a large portion of the believing populated city.

How can the God of the canonized Bible:

Know about this event, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’" Isaiah 46:10

Have the power to change this event, see God's never ending stream of miracles

Loves us tremendously, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

Exist while an event such as the previously mentioned happens? This is not the result of evil people being brought to justice, nor is it people straying from Love and thus creating evil.

This is where this discussion is falling apart; in a false equivalency where the generic Christian God is being barraged and a reasonable philosophy is defending itself while calling itself the former.

Excellent! Perhaps let's start here:

"Though, this is not the title of the post. To the average Christian, God is very much an actionable entity that roams the earth like in Jesus healing the sick and feeding the hungry. Or perhaps God is having an on an off day smiting Sodomites and drowning heathens. If the Bible is taken literally (to say otherwise is to stray from the generic Christian conception of God) then we have a problem which can be very succinctly put in a moment in history."

'To the average "Christian"...'

I really would like to drill down on this point, right here, because it's probably important that we define terms and context.

But before we get to the ingredients of what makes this person a "Christian" in the context that you've intended...

I'd first like to submit 'exhibit A', called 'the human being's lying mouth'.

And, no, I'm not positing the trite idea of, "people lie"...not even close.

I'm talking about a couple who are so in love and got married...
Where after some time the relationship ended up with a little bit of tension...
And where a work colleague of him/her felt like a breath of fresh air...
And where he or she chose to break their partner's trust...

And where that 'lying mouth' was in their mind nattering on and on about a very long list of justifications for the misbehaviour...and when it wasn't preparing its contrived alibi and pseudo-excuse/pseudo-rationale for its intended and impending misbehaviour...it was busy nattering on and on about how beautiful/handsome the colleague is...and nattering on and on about the chemistry flooding the nervous system of the human being.

It is the same lying mouth that will, when faced with its own unloving and ungodly misbehaviour, concoct all kinds of pseudo-rationales and excuses to mitigate, deflect from, or even deny its misbehaviour.

It's unambiguous, and we can look within our own lives, as well as though our collective history, and we can see, predict, prove, and measure its modus operandi and its effects, with total precision.

That one, right there.
That's the 'lying mouth of the human being' which I'm referring to.

And LONG before we delve off into the matter of what people who call themselves "Christian" believe and/or say is the case about God...it makes very good sense for us to drill down...right here...on this matter of the 'lying mouth'...because there is absolutely no ambiguity about it...nor is there any denying its annoying persistence and derogatory effect on the context of our lives upon this planet.

And AFTER we drill down on the matter of 'the lying mouth'...which the above few paragraphs seem to do a very good job of...(unless you have something to add/interject/or disagree with)...THEN we can talk about people who call themselves "Christian" and what it is that they say or believe is the case about themselves, and the case about God.

The difference is that now we can measure their speech, as well as our own, and cross-check it all for 'lying tongue' syndrome...which again...is obviously NOT relegated to simply 'speaking untruth'...but all that precedes and influences whatever vested half-truth, or untruth is being told.

As for the term "God"...I once defined Him as, "The Objective Catalyst, and Totality, Behind Our Existence".

Would this be better suited?

As for the term "Christian", its only context is "those who follow Jesus".

And, since Jesus said that, "What you do to each other, even your 'enemies', you also do to Me,"
As well as, "My only commandment is that you love your one another,"
then we can know 'the Christian' by how they do and don't treat human beings.

With that said...
As we've both pointed out...

The 'lying mouth' is well-pervasive, and one of its most obvious effects is to confuse semantics so that words lose their meaning...which isn't at all a surprise when we flip through the chapters I wrote prior...where its modus operandi, motives, means, and opportunities for attempting to deny and disavow meaning, is made clear as being one of its main mission parameters.

And so we're a bit stuck dealing with a confused and disconnected lexicon where words/semantics have not only had their meanings tampered with, but where, often, we even find them now trending towards the subjective and dynamic antithesis of their initial objective foci and function.

And, as such, we're now stuck with this matter of 'undefining' what our lying mouth has been tampering with, and re-re-defining these matters back into their proper, objective, and truthful categories.

Honestly, I think it's excellent that you'd be willing to undertake such a project, and to help look around this reality and context of life which we find ourselves within, and to see what we can see and find!

While we're on this part of the discussion...would you have any objections to labeling "selfishness", "ungodliness", "unlovingness", "mistreatment", "misbehaviour", "sin", as being synonymous?

Also, I'd like to cite the lack of Jesus ever having had said, "Once you believe that I died and rose, then you are a Christian, and you are, therefore, distinct and separate from those who are not. And, because of this, I will take you to Heaven, and the others I will send to hell."

Also, I'd like to make a very clear distinction between what the writers of the old testament had to say about God, and who professed to wait for "their Saviour", and then had Him killed when He arrived...and the actual Meaning and Intent of the Catalyst Behind the Totality of Our Existence.

I don't imagine that Jesus will actually enter a clinical diagnosis of our locale until towards the end of the discussion, but I'm happy to suggest what He might have to do with things if/when it gets there.

Also, you asked if I would agree that we relegate 'God' to a separate idea like 'the Tao' or other such apparently natural systems, and I'd be very much opposed to that because I'm very clear that this particular context is not the only context where life can exist.

But I think I might be OK with, "The Objective Catalyst Behind Life and/or Our Ability to Experience It"...and with the added caveat and focus that it could be much more of 'a meaning' than it is 'a thing'.

Would that be acceptable for the purpose of communicating this topic?

Lastly, would you agree that it's probable that the whole "nature vs. nurture" debate is a complete non-starter due to the fact that it's probably that our 'human spirit' existed before this universe did...in which case instead of it being an alibi for us...or us the product of it...that it, instead, indicts the 'human spirit' as it reflects the 'human spirit'?

I make the point because it's probably prudent to make a clear distinction between what our specific context of life entails, and why its got these particular qualities and deficits, and what else is probably in existence, elsewhere.

As for the Lisbon earthquake, I rather like that example as it does a good job of paining all human beings with the same brush in a very clinical and objective way.

In my view, it does a good job of laying to waste the different kinds of fables which our 'lying mouth' has contrived in order to selfishly, and with vested interest, pit us against our one another.

I am certainly not copping to the idea that 'God caused it'...nor am I copping to the idea that 'God could have prevented it'.
It's quite likely that these statements are as much non-starts as the debate between nature and nurture.

As far as that is concerned, I will stand on my square when I say that, "We might be highly affected by our longstanding existence within this locale, to where our analog paradigm has made it very difficult to ascertain meaningful and truthful conclusions regarding 'The Objective Catalyst Behind Life and/or Our Ability to Experience It'.

I wrote pages on exactly why this idea makes very good sense and where and how we can cross-check for its accuracy...

...but I admit that 'writing pages' and 'communicating effectively' are two entirely separate things!

@Lemontang

As for, "I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’" Isaiah 46:10

I'm not familiar with the context of that verse...

But I can vouch for that verse entailing nothing more than Perfect Love, wanting to create Perfect Life, in order to express and experience Its Perfect Love.

With that said...I do see the effects of our 'lying mouth' in many parts of the Bible.
But there are litmus tests that can be performed to ascertain what is accurate and what is not.

But the idea God caused what happened to those people in Lisbon, is impossible.

If a father has a son who robs a bank...and who has expressly discouraged his son from robbing a bank...it doesn't make good sense to say that the father is responsible for the bank robbery.

Couple this with the idea that the human spirit existed before this universal locale, and our convenient alibi turns into DNA evidence which indicts us.

In other words, it's quite likely that it is God's will that we return Home and forget death and all that is synonymous with it, and there is probably nothing that can be done to stop it.

This would be a much more competent interpretation than, "God killed people."

Put plain and simply...

If flood/fire/death is reflecting our nature instead of His, then we're not only arguing a non-starter, but we're telling on ourselves...while simultaneously admitting that we're different than Him in all of the ways that we wish that we weren't.

Lastly, I would add that, according to the definition of "Christian", it doesn't seem to be something that most people are perfectly capable of enacting at all times.

In the example of the same person's lying mouth wanting nothing more than a bottle of booze, while the person wants nothing more than lasting sobriety...

...it is as though it could be interpreted that, "The one who chooses the bottle will die, and the one who chooses sobriety will live with Me in heaven."

It could be interpreted that 'the lying mouth' is temporary within this universal locale which reflects its quasi-existence...while the actual person will return Home to live with God.

It is entirely possible that this was the function of Jesus the Christ, who was both Human Being and God, and that, through Him, we are reincarnated in Heaven.

Where, even if none of us are capable of loving perfection, that He was, and that, through Him, the human spirit has been ratified and edified.

Picture a clone of a perfect meaning/being who has developed some bad habits...
Picture that those bad habits prevent that clone from entering the being's mansion...
Picture that the perfect meaning/being enters the clone's locale and assumes its identity...
And, then re-enters His mansion.

What have we got, there?

Is that what we've got, here?

Are there litmus tests which we can look into that would validate/invalidate this idea?

Here again I think we're in agreement about what I will call the, "King James Christian" as it has a nice ring to it. Now we are moving into Christian Apologetics and larger theology where we are now redefining God in perhaps something similar to Bergson's Elan Vitale or Paul Tillich's Ground of Being etc.

However, we can certainly agree that the KJC interpretation of God is a square peg to a round hole in these problems. With this being said we can move on to the other massive points being made here which I think are just way too big to have in the format of a lichess forum haha.

@Resurrection_of_Abel said,

"And AFTER we drill down on the matter of 'the lying mouth'...which the above few paragraphs seem to do a very good job of...(unless you have something to add/interject/or disagree with)...THEN we can talk about people who call themselves "Christian" and what it is that they say or believe is the case about themselves, and the case about God."

This concept must be more clear.

"It's unambiguous, and we can look within our own lives, as well as though our collective history, and we can see, predict, prove, and measure its modus operandi and its effects, with total precision."

I think if this were true all of ethical philosophy would be solved. But here the specifics become cumbersome.

"With that said...I do see the effects of our 'lying mouth' in many parts of the Bible.
But there are litmus tests that can be performed to ascertain what is accurate and what is not."

What are the litmus tests? Yes, in many scenarios our conscience is fought with a lying mouth or our egos getting in the way and some simple logic or even gut instinct can often disillusion us to the right path. But in more complicated scenarios ethical decisions are not as easy as, "Listen to God" or whatever the secular equivalent is. Furthermore, what makes these litmus tests more accurate than for instance the Categorical Imperative?

"As for the term "Christian", its only context is "those who follow Jesus"."

Sure! We can for instance throw out the lots of the Bible on account of the book of Esther not mentioning the word God once, the outdated rules of the Pentateuch that the early Christians sought to rewrite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache), the fevered dream of a guy named John in Revelation and so on. We can call into question many of the long held interpretations of Jesus' Gospel by looking at the Hellenistic Greek and historical context of the words Gehenna and Aionios. We can very easily use this definition to make a conventional agnostic a Christian.

"I am certainly not copping to the idea that 'God caused it'...nor am I copping to the idea that 'God could have prevented it'.
It's quite likely that these statements are as much non-starts as the debate between nature and nurture."

I think the KJC runs into problems here as his God absolutely can prevent it as Jesus resurrected Lazarus, healed the lepers, and fed the five thousand or as the OT God did more spectacular feats. If the same Jesus that performed these miracles is around today why would he not prevent these as he certainly had the ability. Nobody in their right mind would say that if we walk by a drowning child in a pool we are not responsible for its death if we simply ignore it. If anything were the 'lying mouth' that would certainly be an excuse and that is exactly the situation the KJC God would have been in with reference to those saints as drowning children.

Unfortunately that's all I have for now. I think this will grow exponentially without specificity and I'm not sure I can keep up lol.

So, since it seems like no one has a counterargument to my claim that's actually backed with logic and reason, here are the conclusions from all this debating @xDoubledragon :

1. If you're going off of the Christian faith, God is not cruel because it's not his fault sin exists. In other words, i'm not cruel because I said so - it's humanity's fault sin exists.

However if you actually use reason and logic (no faith), here are the other two conclusions you reach:

2. God is cruel, because he created a universe where suffering and evil exists. If he couldn't create a universe without suffering and evil and still achieve the same ends he had for creating humanity, the main tenant of the 30,000+ flavors of christianity are wrong, because either god is not Omnipotent (or actually good), or there's forces outside his control that he cannot alter.

3. Despite god many times going against his own code of ethics in biblical text, it is a waste of time and impossible to assume we understand the ethics of a being that could create existence. I would extend this argument further - religion itself is a waste of time, and it is and always will be impossible to prove. Even if we could undeniably prove that the big bang occurred and we know exactly why it started, there is nothing stopping Christians or any religion from saying "well god created that thing." When you're willing to have your life guided by principles that require no proof or basis in reality, at best you get a life filled with meaningless mental masturbation, such as all of Resurrection_of_Abel 's posts in this thread. At worst you have people using it to justify great evil, and trying to contradict and stifle science - the very method of thinking and proof that allowed us to rise from the huts of the sand people that contrived this nonsense called christianity.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #229:
I'm going honest with you, I was too lazy to read whole debate from 6-22 page, that's why I didn't respond. Maybe today I will read everything tho