Hang on, folks. We’re going for a ride!

This post was inspired by several articles written over the years by JanH, but most recently by his post in here on the Divine Command Theory of Ethics and other dilemmas faced by believers of a “traditional”, i.e. omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God: God is “all-caring”, “all-knowing”, “all-present” and “all-powerful.”

There are many ways to express this theory including using the words “good” and “right.” For this purposes of this essay, those two words will be interchangeable. Since the Watchtower Printing and Religious Propaganda Corporation has expressed orally and in print their unconditional belief in the Divine Command Theory of Ethics, we will do well to analyze it.

A simple way to state the Divine Command Theory of Ethics is:

a) “An act is right if God commands it.”

If a) is true then

b) “All acts commanded by God are right.”

must also be logically true, because if God commands an act, it must be right. If God would command an act that was not right, then a) would be false.

But what is the definition of “right?” The Divine Command Theory postulates that “Whatever God says is right is right,” and by implication, “whatever God says is wrong is wrong.”

Consider the two possibilities of “what is right”:

a) An act is right if God approves it.
b) An act is approved by God BECAUSE it is right.

Do these two assertions look like the same thing to you? They are certainly NOT the same!

If a) is true then God is arbitrary: anything he says is right, IS right. Period. If God says grinding up and eating infant human children is right, then it is right.

If b) is true, then God is using some standard outside himself to measure what is right and what isn’t. The phrase “BECAUSE it is right” is a qualifier that points to some outside standard and is a lot different than saying “because God says so,” which implies no standard at all.

This puts the true believers in this theory into a big mess, since they believe that God is the Creator of everything (except he cannot be the Creator of himself, but that’s another dilemma!), he is also the Creator of what’s right and what’s wrong. Therefore, they reject b) because b) is conditional upon the concept of “right” existing as a standard independent of God.

They are forced to take a) which is that God’s decisions HAVE to be arbitrary.

“But God would NEVER make an arbitrary decision. He would always make the RIGHT decision,” believers will say.

“Well then, who determines that his decisions are right?”, critics ask.

“HE does,” they say.

“That’s circular reasoning. You are using the conclusion to prove the premise, which you use to prove the conclusion, which you use to prove the premise which you use to prove the… See what I mean?”

“Are you trying to say that God would order humans to do something which wasn’t right?”

“God COULD order that torturing someone to death for being caught with a Donald Duck comic book is a “right” punishment. He might never do it, but he could do it, couldn’t he?”

Believers in this theory at this point are forced to admit that God CAN do anything he chooses including decreeing the torture example I just gave.

“Yes, God could do that but he never would.”

“Why would he never do that?”

“Because it isn’t RIGHT!”

“Oh, so then YOU either a) have a standard of your own that God must measure up to, or you believe that b) there is another standard that God must measure up to which is independent of his own standards.”

Then comes the final gasping “argument” from the vanquished believer:

“Well, I have faith that God would never do that.”

“Okeedokie. Fine and dandy. So you admit that God’s decisions are purely arbitrary?”

“No, I’ll never admit that.”

“But there is no way by which to measure God’s decisions. They are independent of everything. Whatever he says is good is good and whatever he says is evil is evil. That is the definition of arbitrary. Does God hold himself up to the same standards he imposes upon humans?”

“Of COURSE he does. He’s God!”

“Did God say that humans should not kill?”

“Yes.”

“Did God kill the entire planet save for 8 souls once? Did God order the same chosen people he gave the commandment not to kill and then turn around HIMSELF and personally kill tens of thousands of their enemies, and further order these same people to kill tens of thousands more?”

“Well, they were wicked.”

“The commandment did not say, “Thou shalt not kill unless they are wicked, did it?”

“When God ordered Abraham to slaughter and sacrifice his son, was that ordered because it was “right? And after Abraham went ahead and tried to do it and God stopped him, was the original order still “right” and was the order to DISOBEY the original order also ‘right’? Obeying order = “right.” Disobeying same order = “right.” Do you see the problem here?”

“As you can see, it is clear that at least as far as the Bible goes, “right” is whatever God says it is, and whatever God says is “right” is right. It’s purely arbitrary, as I’ve just proved. Since God has already shown he can be purely arbitrary, it’s not impossible to believe that he couldn’t also be so in the future.”

So if God’s decisions are purely arbitrary, [a) an act is right if God approves it] then there can be no moral standard apart from him.
But yet, even the Bible itself disproves this and shows that there IS a moral standard apart from god [b) an act is approved by God BECAUSE it is right.] It’s found in Genesis 18:23,25. “It is unthinkable of you that you are acting in this manner to put to death the righteous man with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! It is unthinkable of you. Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is RIGHT?”

Indeed. Abraham is pleading with God to do what is RIGHT! This clearly shows that Abraham is using a standard APART from what God had decided was right.

So the Divine Command Theory of Ethics falls on all counts:

1) God is arbitrary and capricious with many disastrous results befalling humans as a result, or
2) God must uses standard of right and wrong outside himself in order to make his decisions.

If 1) is true, the God of the Bible is a jerk.

If 2) is true, God is not all-powerful (omnipotent) and at best is merely a head cheerleader in the human arena. Whenever he steps in as head cheerleader lots of people always gets killed, however.

He’s also not omniscient, because if he were, he would have known in advance that Abraham would have killed his son on command and he would never had to issue and then retract the command in the first place.

He’s also not omnipresent. He didn’t even know where Adam was in the Garden of Eden, or how many righteous people there were in Sodom.

This is among the many LOGICAL reasons why I do not believe in the Bible as being divinely inspired or the God of the Bible.

Now, on the other hand, if “right” and “wrong” were moral decisions based upon each circumstance and appropriateness for each circumstance, we have a brand new ball game without any silly “Divine Command of Ethics Theory.” Killing may be wrong, but is war always wrong under all circumstances? Is euthanasia inherently wrong under all circumstances?

Since God has been away on vacation for eons, these dilemmas can only be solved by puny humans such as ourselves. Considering our limitations, I think we’ve done pretty well under the circumstances. There is far more good than evil without Jehovah ordering everyone around all the time. It wasn’t that way in the Bible. You could get killed from God for flossing your teeth improperly back them.

If God exists, he has put us here on our own, and we’d better get used to it. Society never made any advancement waiting for God to fix what’s wrong and when God did fix what was wrong, he always went a tad overboard with his slaughter.

Farkel

Well done, Farkel.

Of course, you're completely wrong -- that is, you aren't right. There's a very simple reason, of course: you are vile apostate scum.

But seriously: aren't there any Christian apologists here who want to take a crack at this? Or is it hopeless?

Dedalus, who knows it's hopeless

Farkel,
Thanks for posting this. I am impressed. I have to take some time to think about this.
wendy

mox,

One of Farkel's points near the end of his anlysis was that God goes a "tad overboard" in the killing area. A God that is all knowing would show he knows the difference between killing and murder. However, his style on the OT is one of wholesale slaughter. This doesn't compute very well for me.

Farkel,

Being God gave us the logic we use, or do not use at times, who is that God that gave us logic? And how do you know that the logic one uses is of God?

: And how do you know that the logic one uses is of God?

Obviously, you do not understand formal logic. If you did, you would have never asked that question. Formal logic is formal logic and "God logic" falls under the same rules as "human logic," logically speaking! I was not talking about the many "matters of faith," but rather moral issues of which some can be evaluated logically. Specifically, I was talking about a certain moral ethic known as the "Divine Command Theory of Ethics" and nothing more. That particular theory CAN be evaluated logically as I have shown. If you want to challenge my conclusions, please feel free to do so.

I suggest you study the subject and you will then see that if certain theological and ethical dilemmas cannot stand up to logic, then they are not worthy of consideration, much less belief.

Farkel

farkel,
is all-powerful= to all other power? or is it all power?
all-powerful+ all other power= grater that gods power
all powerful, being all power from, by and of the all-powerful?

all-present? god is all that is present?
or god is present with all?
if god is present with all then there is a "present" that is not god and therefor god is not ALL present?


all-knowing is it = to all other knowlige
or the knowing is all gods

if god is all-powerful, no power outside of god then the words good and bad do not apply and to use them is to call god not- all- powerful but of grate-power

i like your logic but to talk about it i will need to understand your tarms

you say the given is god is all-powerful then you say that things happen outside of gods power. if i go with the given i can not go with the good/bad or of god not of god god being by the given the power of good/bad the presents of g/b the knowlige of g/b

if you can see where i am going, maby you could define your turms

Farkel: As per your request to refute the logic. No won't play that game cause basicly I agree. I dont beleive in Santa, The Tooth Fairy, Omniscient Omnipotent omnipresnt or omnivorous gods. (The reasons for my conclusion are outlined elsewhere on the site.) As some one else said on the site about throwing the baby out with the bath water - "there isn't any baby in the bath"

And please excuse my lack of education but I am from the generation that frowned on education. You know - The end is near so go pioneer! You dont need any skills the new system will be here!

How about this from a book I'm reading about Freemasonry? (My paternal grandfather was involved in this, so I thought I'd have a look.)

"Albert Pike (1809-1891) was born in Boston, Massachusetts. He was a teacher and a Brigadier General in the Civil War. Later, he was tried for treason. He held the highest office in Scottish Rite Masonry and rewrote all Scottish right rituals which are still practiced today. These rituals are pagan and occultic in design. Mr. Pike was an admitted Luciferian, believing that two co-equal Gods exist in the universe; Lucifer, the god of good and light, and Adonay, the Christian god, who rules evil and darkness.

"'The religious beliefs of Albert Pike should be considered as they are found in the instructions issued by him on July 4, 1889 to the twenty-three Supreme Councils of the world. That which we must say to the crowd is - We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees -- The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay (The God of the Christians) whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy, and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests, calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God and unfortunately Adonay is also God. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two Gods: darkness being necessary to light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive. In analogical and universal dynamics one can only lean on that which will resist. Thus the universe is balanced by two forces which maintain its equilibrium: the force of attraction and that of repulsion. These two forces exist in physics, philosophy and religion. And the scientific reality of the divine dualism is demonstrated by the phenomena of polarity and by the univeral law of sympathies and antipathies. That is why the intelligent disciples of Zoroaster, as well as, after them, the Gnostics, the Manicheans and the Templars have admitted, as the only logical metaphysical conception, the system of the two diving principles fighting eternally, and one cannot believe the one inferior in power to the other. Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophic religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Goo, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil. At the time of this declaration, Pike accepted simultaneously the positions of Grand Master of the Central Directory of Washington, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Charleston and Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry. He is looked upon today as the foremost literary genius of Masonry and is probably best known for his famous work Morals and Dogman.'"

Ref. is: "Occult Theocracy" - Lady Queensborough - The Christian Book Club of America

From "Freemasonry" - Copyright - Jack Harris - Whitaker House, 1983

Freemasonry is definitely another mind control cult -- as indicated above, you have to make it to the 30th degree before you are told what you are really worshipping. (I wonder if susceptibility to mind-control is a genetic disorder????) But since many of this board's members have a hard time with Jehovah's penchant for blood and in light of Farkel's other post on Evil being a game, I thought the above interesting enough to share.

Just trying to do right in the big chess game of life,
outnfree

fark:
you're right, the substance of my comments were just an impromptu opinion i formed while reading your post late at night :) and yes, i would want to read up on the subject before trying a full-blown debate but let me try to elaborate a bit more on my logical counter-argument and u tell me if u think it has any merit.

in this post and the one on 'god v good' you are trying to establish what is 'uppermost' the standard or god himself. does god follow the standard, making himself subordinate to it or does the standard follow god making him arbitrary and the concept of right basically meaningless? im saying that this is a 'false dilemma', black-and-white argument. it does not necessarily follow that a standard which god follows makes him subordinate to that standard.

eg, if a divine being were to lie, say that something would definitely occur but did not, then we could conclude that he wasnt really god in the omnipotent omniscient sense (lets exclude that line for sake of this argument) or that he is implying that lying is 'ok' or 'good' (at least when he does it.) our god is now inconsistent. what law has he broken? a logical law, i suppose. if a==b is determinably true then a!=b is false. did god invent that law? would it be possible to have a universe for which that law was not true, an 'irrational universe'? if you think it is, then you might as well get off the bus here, i have no counter-argument for that. if there were a supposition of true and false states so that both existed and were both equally 'real' (as in quantum theory's mulitverse interpretation), then god by definition would need to inhabit a state outside of that where the truth or falsehood of a==b was indeterminate. so even though the universe from our viewpoint might be irrational, it could not be for god. so from his viewpoint, that law could not be violated. consistency and rationality and truth then become standards that are the result of a rational state of existence. to say that god might 'follow' that standard in his own dealings does not seem to make him subordinate to a higher standard, because i cannot see how there could be any other state of existence that did not have such a logical basis but is still inhabited by conscious beings. and from there i think you could define 'right' and 'good' in terms of rationality and consistency.

note: 'god' in my arguments is god in the popular definition and not the OT jehovah so please do not use the bible to counter them.

also when i say that you nor i will disturb the logic of the faithful, i am not implying that faith is based on logic. prehaps i should say the 'logic' of the faithful, with logic in quotes.

mox