by gubberningbody 48 Replies latest jw friends
Either way, it is stupid to think that a being of limited knowledge and judgement can judge a being of unlimited knowledge and judgement. We even try to get all the facts when we judge other humans, so that our judgement is true. How can a limited human possibly have all the facts so that he can judge God? It is simply not possible for us to know how an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent God would act.
BTS
Burn, What narrative can be put forth that such a being would have a "need" to do anything?
I do thought experiments all the time. I don't need to act on them to know the outcome, certainly such a definitionally mythical being wouldn't have the "need" to act, when thought would do.
"You're already a bastard. Might as well be an enlightened one" - Simon Birch
If "God" (1) is responsible for both moral and logical "rules" and (2) remains above both, there is simply no argument against him... or for him either.
There's no way out of this aporia until you cry, laugh, shrug or otherwise snap yourself out...
Either way, it is stupid to think that a being of limited knowledge and judgement can judge a being of unlimited knowledge and judgement. We even try to get all the facts when we judge other humans, so that our judgement is true. How can a limited human possibly have all the facts so that he can judge God?
Burn, I hope you know I respect your right to believe and worship as you will. However, in the spirit of this discussion, I have to call out this fall back position of theists.
I find it ironic that the one being who is supposedly higher up, is not the one who says we humans are limited.
It is man who presumes to tell man that god is superior. The benefits come esp for the religious leaders of any stripe (priests, rabbis, elders, etc) who represent "god" in front of their flock. They are the ones maintaining this, because they have the most to lose if the man behind the curtain is revealed.
The problem with this is simple: We are being asked to worship and follow a set of laws that often contradict common sense. (not all, but more then a few understood laws and ideas) When push comes to shove, and more "why's?" are asked, answers are not forthcoming. The only thing thats left is "God knows better then you. Settle down, his authority trumps your questions."
We learned the hard way as JW's that this is not a great position to be in. In addition, I can't imagine that god is really thrilled, when she knows best of all that she has been absent, she would not censure either questions, or the decision of many like myself to choose not to worship when she herself has been a no show.
I personally expect more from "god" when "god" is described a certain way by her adherants.
BurnTheShips - "Either way, it is stupid to think that a being of limited knowledge and judgement can judge a being of unlimited knowledge and judgement. We even try to get all the facts when we judge other humans, so that our judgement is true. How can a limited human possibly have all the facts so that he can judge God? It is simply not possible for us to know how an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent God would act."
Also, BTS, while it is true that we could not know how such a God would act, it also makes him as a "person" unknowable. But that aside, we must asses God's charachter using whatever "limited knowledge" that is available to us. We ALL judge God. Even diehard believers. I think it is more proper for a believer to make the assertion that 'Humans should not/cannot judge God AND come to a negative opinion about him.'
Yet we see many of God's actions in the OT that fly in the face of all moral sense, so believers are forced to make rationalizations like what you just said. The problem is, literally anything can be rationalized using such reasoning.
God should know this, and he should know how humans reason, so it makes logical sense that an "omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent God" would be able to accomplish his will in a way that would leave no doubt in the minds of his imperfect servants on earth as to his righteousness, rather than forcing us to accept atrocities that go against the morality that he supposedly gave us... if that makes sense.
Your reasoning puts God in the category of a despotic dictator. But somehow his personality does seem to fit extremely well with the likes of Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Il.
Also, BTS, while it is true that we could not know how such a God would act, it also makes him as a "person" unknowable.
That's true. But God could also choose to manifest himself in an intelligible manner. In a sense, we are all "unknowable" to each other.
Your reasoning puts God in the category of a despotic dictator.
Certainly it does not. If it were so, we would be no more than automata. Besides, we could argue that the very rules and logic that bind us on this level are despotic, yet these things are the very substrate of our physical selves. It is within God that we exist and have our being.
Your reasoning puts God in the category of a despotic dictator. But somehow his personality does seem to fit extremely well with the likes of Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Il.
Certainly, I do not recommend limiting my discussion to a depiction of God in the OT written from a certain point of view.
BTS
Dark ,
"I think it is more proper for a believer to make the assertion that 'Humans should not/cannot judge God AND come to a negative opinion about him.'
may be thought to be "proper", but that in itself implies a reference to a standard. Where is or can this standard be except in the mind of the one making the comparison? If it is in the mind of that one, then it is a self-designed standard and not an external objectively verifiable one.
If anyone decides to make any sense out of God-talk, they simply have to be specific about what it is they're talking about. Using imaginary language like omni-potent, omni-scient, and omni-benevolent defies any further discussion and is in itself non-sense insofar as the persons using the same are not "making sense".
What do these people mean when they use these terms?
As regards judgment and the "should not/cannot" argument I read this as saying:
"Humans cannot judge God" - But we see this done all the time, so clearly that's false.
"Humans should not judge God." - Is just a statement without any rational support.
It necessarily follows, though that if I accept the latter, that "Humans should not love God." either, because the act of loving is a judgment.
"Humans cannot rightly judge God"
A bit of a logic failure there. I fixed it for you.
We wrongly judge each other all the time. Even in our court systems. How many guilty walk and innocent pay? So really, the issue is not the submitting of God to human judgement, which happens all the time and with everyone that thinks about it, but the correct judgement of God. As I have demonstrated, this is not really possible due to our own limitations. We cannot judge the will of this being without possesing these same attributes. In our legal system we are required to be judged by "a jury of our peers". We are not God's peers.
BTS
I should say BTS... I love your posts and don't want you think me an asshole. Although I do enjoy discussing this kind of thing. (Not arguing!)
God could also choose to manifest himself in an intelligible manner.
Yes but you said previously that, "It is simply not possible for us to know how an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent God would act." You seem to want to have both ways. Which goes along with a point that I made earlier that God could choose to act in a manner that would leave no doubt as to his righteousness. Yet he chose to do things that no moral person would ever do, and then leave them unexplained as to why he chose to do them that way! We are left to simply rationalize that God's ways are supposed to be higher than ours. So my question is, why does God not choose to act in a manner that we can morally relate to? Why all the cruelty towards women and the killing of babies and the like?
If it were so, we would be no more than automata. Besides, we could argue that the very rules and logic that bind us on this level are despotic, yet these things are the very substrate of our physical selves. It is within God that we exist and have our being.
I don't see the necessity for us to be automata if God were a cruel dictator. We could call the physical laws despotic, but it's a useless description, as the physical laws simply are what they are. It's like saying gravity is cruel because it prevents us from flying. And the rest of that seems an unprovable assertion.
Certainly, I do not recommend limiting my discussion to a depiction of God in the OT written from a certain point of view.
I can understand why. It would be unfair to a certain extent... but the fact is those things in the OT don't fit into the Christian concept of "God's Love" and hence the need to rationalize or ignore them.
"Humans cannot rightly judge God"
In an absolute sense you are correct, we can't rightly judge anything. But your logic appears to rest on the assumption that a being posessing those qualities is even possible. It would be like saying "I could tell you the color of that invisible unicorn if only I could see it." Prove there's a unicorn first, and then we'll discuss it's attributes.
We are not God's peers.
Yes, but as mentioned, and as you've admitted, God could choose to manifest and behave in a way that is completely understandable to us. Certainly that would not be outside the realm of his power.
gubberningbody - Yes I was giving an opinion on what might be more logically coherent for a believer to say when the assertion is made that "We cannot (as in, 'have no right to') judge God". But the statement "We cannot (as in, 'do not have the ability') to judge God" is problematic as well, as it is based on several assumptions. Excellent points made.
Not limiting myself to the mind deity of the bible, my god's morals would be morals equal to mine. There would be no devil, or apposing force to do bad or evil.
Of course the term "evil" being purely a metaphorical generic term that can mean almost anything negative or destructive to the human species being the evilest, and less bad when considering other species in their imaginations(apes-amoebas),,which is depending on what cultural indoctrination and conditioning one has been exposed to in life at present. "Evil" is only subjective it can never be objective.
As new things come into understanding evil expand es to include these these things and the possibilities of good and evil. Judgements are always points of view that depend on what one has been preconditioned to believe,, I'm sure a lion would not consider it evil to eat you,, your just another meal to him if he felt bad for anything he ate he's be a neurotic sickly skin and bones lion. Evil is human centered,,biased on conditioning,,and religious beliefs it is not caused by some evil deity,, that is a mere belief.
