How can we know that God is?

[tabibito]

Exactly. The usual response is that God is not bound by his own rules for one reason or another. This can be, as suggested by Tab, that God knew of some kind of greater good that would justify the apparent evil.

For a more complete summation, add that God will choose the best from an available (nuanced) range of options. In which case, choosing action of the kinds most commonly criticised would indicate particularly unfavourable circumstances. The normal course of refraining from using the great power of zap might indicate that it is classed as an even worse option than giving the command.

Another is "divine command theory", which suggests that as God makes the rules anything he says must be right, even though he may seem to contradict himself. (Someone is going to correct me on the meaning of divine command theory, but that's close I think.)

As a ball park summation, it works reasonably well (not that it would be acceptable in an academic presentation). It also stands that "divine command theory" proponents are divided between a number of different schools. (Does anyone express surprise?)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Exactly. The usual response is that God is not bound by his own rules for one reason or another. This can be, as suggested by Tab, that God knew of some kind of greater good that would justify the apparent evil. This one is hard to argue with, as the appeal to a higher level of knowledge is unbeatable as it circles around to itself.

And such a concept suggests a monstrous deity. It exculpates that [omniscient and omnipotent] deity from any responsibility for all the atrocities that have been committed throughout recorded history [including those done in Its name]. It also comes back to Alice's "Jam tomorrow". Whatever misery and/or horror is being inflicted on you in the here and now, do not concern yourself. it is all for some greater good known only to the deity.

Another is "divine command theory", which suggests that as God makes the rules anything he says must be right, even though he may seem to contradict himself. (Someone is going to correct me on the meaning of divine command theory, but that's close I think.)

From my reading the "divine command theory" is somewhat complex. However, I daresay there will be one or two here who will attempt to encapsulate it into a few paragraphs.

[tabibito]

And such a concept suggests a monstrous deity. It exculpates that [omniscient and omnipotent] deity from any responsibility for all the atrocities that have been committed throughout recorded history [including those done in Its name]. It also comes back to Alice's "Jam tomorrow". Whatever misery and/or horror is being inflicted on you in the here and now, do not concern yourself. it is all for some greater good known only to the deity.

[Just for the sake of argument] Pretending that all the negative reports of Russia's actions in the Ukraine are 100% accurate, without any mitigating factors to perhaps justify all or some of them, would it be reasonable to support a journey back in time** to eliminate Putin and other key Russian players before they could stir up trouble? (** assuming that the technology existed) You have the apparent power to prevent a broad swathe of atrocities. Do you approve or take part in the action to eliminate those people?

Assume further that you have data allowing you to assess all possible futures, including those that arise because of Putin and company's elimination: assume that the outcome would be wholesale war between Russia, China and America which would leave half of the planet a poisoned wasteland.

Assume yet further that the only way to prevent such an outcome would be to allow the Ukraine and its population to be obliterated - which will not be possible if Ukraine gets support, or if Russia does not. [/Just for the sake of argument]

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

[Just for the sake of argument] Pretending that all the negative reports of Russia's actions in the Ukraine are 100% accurate, without any mitigating factors to perhaps justify all or some of them, would it be reasonable to support a journey back in time** to eliminate Putin and other key Russian players before they could stir up trouble? (** assuming that the technology existed) You have the apparent power to prevent a broad swathe of atrocities. Do you approve or take part in the action to eliminate those people?

Assume further that you have data allowing you to assess all possible futures, including those that arise because of Putin and company's elimination: assume that the outcome would be wholesale war between Russia, China and America which would leave half of the planet a poisoned wasteland.

Assume yet further that the only way to prevent such an outcome would be to allow the Ukraine and its population to be obliterated - which will not be possible if Ukraine gets support, or if Russia does not. [/Just for the sake of argument]

[Just for the sake of argument] Pretend that there is an omniscient and omnipotent deity that has always existed and that deity creates a world and also a particular being to inhabit that world.

Being omniscient this deity knows before It creates either the world or this being that this being is going fail the first test that the deity gives it and the deity knows that as result of that failure, that being and all its descendants will suffer misery.

This deity [being omnipotent] also has the power to change or alter anything [prior to or after] It has created this world and has the power to prevent any "natural disasters".

Being omniscient it also knows that the fusing of a particular sperm and ovum will result in some decidedly unattractive individuals being born and of course because It is omnipotent it can prevent those particular ovum and sperm fusing or It can decide to abort the resulting foetus. It can also decide [long before forming the earth] not to create pathogens or parasites.

[tabibito]

[Just for the sake of argument] Pretend that there is an omniscient and omnipotent deity that has always existed and that deity creates a world and also a particular being to inhabit that world.

Being omniscient this deity knows before It creates either the world or this being that this being is going fail the first test that the deity gives it and the deity knows that as result of that failure, that being and all its descendants will suffer misery.

This deity [being omnipotent] also has the power to change or alter anything [prior to or after] It has created this world and has the power to prevent any "natural disasters".

Being omniscient it also knows that the fusing of a particular sperm and ovum will result in some decidedly unattractive individuals being born and of course because It is omnipotent it can prevent those particular ovum and sperm fusing or It can decide to abort the resulting foetus. It can also decide [long before forming the earth] not to create pathogens or parasites.

I see - you want to argue about some God that is not presented in Biblical sources.

[seer]

If "God only acts according to His moral nature which is immutable" then God has no free will.

Of course not, not when it comes to His moral nature. He can not be other than He is. He how ever does have freedom in other areas - what to create, how to create, whether to create or not, etc...

[tabibito]

Of course not, not when it comes to His moral nature. He can not be other than He is. He how ever does have freedom in other areas - what to create, how to create, whether to create or not, etc...

It might be worth considering whether it is possible for anyone to against his moral nature. If he does something, it is within the limits of his moral nature to do it - insofar as I can tell.

[seer]

It might be worth considering whether it is possible for anyone to against his moral nature. If he does something, it is within the limits of his moral nature to do it - insofar as I can tell.

I don't know, can a man go against what he believes is right or good?

[tabibito]

I don't know, can a man go against what he believes is right or good?

Different scenario - a person can acknowledge that a thing is bad even while in the act of doing it. Generally it is accompanied by a process of self justification: School yard bullies will usually acknowledge that attacking a defenceless person is a serious moral breach, but they are often adept at inventing ways to make their target a legitimate exception. Only usually though, some don't feel the need to invent justifications.

[rogue06]

Thanks, I take that as a compliment...

You would.

Nobody is laughing WITH you

[rogue06]

So I did. Badly phrased, I was just inviting comments from others as well as Seer and assumed that the question itself would be assumed to be addressed to theists. My bad.

No worries. I was just a bit confused by the contradiction. It makes sense that you would direct this to Christians and / or other theists.

[rogue06]

About moral rules.

You were far from clear about that

[rogue06]

You asked a question of me



to which I gave a response:



Did you ever reply?

Apparently not.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I see - you want to argue about some God that is not presented in Biblical sources.

If this deity is deemed not to be omnipotent and It has no control over the events of this world, why call it God? It seems we are back to the Epicurean Paradox.

[tabibito]

If this deity is deemed not to be omnipotent and It has no control over the events of this world, why call it God? It seems we are back to the Epicurean Paradox.

If this person does not control every last person and event in the empire, why call him an emperor?

The Epicurean Paradox calls the four omnis - as absolutes - into question. It seems to me logically sound. One way or another, something acts on God to prevent him from eliminating evil (at least until now). Even turning a person into a saint requires the willing and active cooperation of the person concerned.