Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

The Utilitarian God

Ruckmanite
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:49:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheists often object to the God of the Bible on account of what ostensibly appear to be immoral actions, such as genocide, slavery, war, etc. However, if one assumes that God is utilitarian, then his actions become vindicated.

Utilitarianism is the belief that you're supposed to perform the action which produces the most utility or good. Even if the means are bad, the overall outcome is for the most good to occur.

Using this definition then, no human being could ever be utilitarian because one would have to know ALL possible outcomes that an action could result in. It's only after knowing EVERY POSSIBLE outcome that one could take the course of action that promotes the most utility. Obviously then, God is the only one with this ability.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.

What do you think?
Let your words be the genuine picture of your heart- John Wesley
Money is a horrid thing to follow, but a charming thing to meet-Henry James
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 9:55:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I personally prefer the first god ever created. It was called Ooboo.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 10:13:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:49:11 AM, Ruckmanite wrote:
Atheists often object to the God of the Bible on account of what ostensibly appear to be immoral actions, such as genocide, slavery, war, etc. However, if one assumes that God is utilitarian, then his actions become vindicated.

Utilitarianism is the belief that you're supposed to perform the action which produces the most utility or good. Even if the means are bad, the overall outcome is for the most good to occur.

Using this definition then, no human being could ever be utilitarian because one would have to know ALL possible outcomes that an action could result in. It's only after knowing EVERY POSSIBLE outcome that one could take the course of action that promotes the most utility. Obviously then, God is the only one with this ability.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.

What do you think?

Well, for one, utilitarianism is false.

And, two, relating to one, there's a reason why the vast majority of Christian intellectuals aren't utilitarians. Most hold to the Kantian "respect for persons" ethic, and rightly so.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 10:21:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ooboo was created by Ugg who had defeated Wah in the battle for supremacy in the cave, thus giving Ugg the right to create his god and not Wah's god.
Very simple really.
The successful tribe of the canaanites called themselves hebrews and their preferred god was the war god of the canaanite pantheon called yahweh.
Just the way it happens, just ask Ugg.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
steffon66
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 10:53:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:49:11 AM, Ruckmanite wrote:
Atheists often object to the God of the Bible on account of what ostensibly appear to be immoral actions, such as genocide, slavery, war, etc. However, if one assumes that God is utilitarian, then his actions become vindicated.

no his acts dont become vindicated. he is supposed to be all powerful which means he could accomplish what he needs to accomplish without causing many innocent people to suffer.

Utilitarianism is the belief that you're supposed to perform the action which produces the most utility or good. Even if the means are bad, the overall outcome is for the most good to occur.

saying that god cant do whats best without doing some wrong is to say that he isnt all powerful.

Using this definition then, no human being could ever be utilitarian because one would have to know ALL possible outcomes that an action could result in. It's only after knowing EVERY POSSIBLE outcome that one could take the course of action that promotes the most utility. Obviously then, God is the only one with this ability.

if he exists but i doubt he does as the only books/scriptures saying he exists all contradict each other and the evidence for randomnes is all around us. my first example would be the fact that what should happen is a very narrow set of things while what happens is a very broad set of things.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

again if he is all powerful he would have to do evil to accomplish good and if there is no way for god to accomplish the best outcome without doing some wrong then he is not all powerful because thats something he cant do.

For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

an all powerful god could prevent war if he wanted to without doing evil himself thats rediculous. way to use your imagination but thats all your using is your imagination and it shows big time.

It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.

thats crap as ive just shown you because we know he is supposed to be all powerful while people starve and while children get raped. the best possible outcomes dont happen and its clearly randomness. there is ugly and pretty and evreything in between. there is retarded and genius and everything in between. there is fat and skinny and everything in between. with everything there is a scale from one to ten one being as bad as it can be and ten being as good as it can be and everything on that scale happens which suggests randomness. as i said what should happen is a very narrow set of things while what happens is a very very broad set of things. randomness. thats the only logical explanation unless god is bad.

What do you think?
i think you would defend the bible no matter how horrible it was because you need to believe. i bet you cried when you found out santa clause was a lie and now that there is something just as implausible and fantastic as your child hood beliefs that adults believe in you have to believe in it. we dont choose our beliefs so there is no use getting angry at people for their beliefs but im angry that we have people who believe such crap. not angry at the people who believe it but if there is a god then im angry at him for not making humans smarter as there intelligence level is the biggest cause of evil leaving them not at fault and leaving god at fault as its his creation that is the cause of evil and it is not our faults for at least the most part.
Ruckmanite
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 12:02:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 10:13:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:49:11 AM, Ruckmanite wrote:
Atheists often object to the God of the Bible on account of what ostensibly appear to be immoral actions, such as genocide, slavery, war, etc. However, if one assumes that God is utilitarian, then his actions become vindicated.

Utilitarianism is the belief that you're supposed to perform the action which produces the most utility or good. Even if the means are bad, the overall outcome is for the most good to occur.

Using this definition then, no human being could ever be utilitarian because one would have to know ALL possible outcomes that an action could result in. It's only after knowing EVERY POSSIBLE outcome that one could take the course of action that promotes the most utility. Obviously then, God is the only one with this ability.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.

What do you think?

Well, for one, utilitarianism is false.
you say this with no evidence to support your claim.

And, two, relating to one, there's a reason why the vast majority of Christian intellectuals aren't utilitarians. Most hold to the Kantian "respect for persons" ethic, and rightly so.

Kant believed the moral standard was greater than God; that is, that God himself would have to obey the moral law. But doesn't this naturally suppose that God is not all good, if even He needs a standard to be judged by? I assume that you're Kantian mainly because of the "love for others" message in the NT, but really even the crucifixion of Christ is utilitarian. God sacrificed His Son for the salvation of mankind, i.e. producing the most good.
Let your words be the genuine picture of your heart- John Wesley
Money is a horrid thing to follow, but a charming thing to meet-Henry James
Ruckmanite
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 12:14:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 10:53:48 AM, steffon66 wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:49:11 AM, Ruckmanite wrote:
Atheists often object to the God of the Bible on account of what ostensibly appear to be immoral actions, such as genocide, slavery, war, etc. However, if one assumes that God is utilitarian, then his actions become vindicated.

no his acts dont become vindicated. he is supposed to be all powerful which means he could accomplish what he needs to accomplish without causing many innocent people to suffer.

Is there really such a thing as "innocent people?" Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned."

Utilitarianism is the belief that you're supposed to perform the action which produces the most utility or good. Even if the means are bad, the overall outcome is for the most good to occur.

saying that god cant do whats best without doing some wrong is to say that he isnt all powerful.
or God decides to use evil for His own purpose?
Using this definition then, no human being could ever be utilitarian because one would have to know ALL possible outcomes that an action could result in. It's only after knowing EVERY POSSIBLE outcome that one could take the course of action that promotes the most utility. Obviously then, God is the only one with this ability.

if he exists but i doubt he does as the only books/scriptures saying he exists all contradict each other and the evidence for randomnes is all around us. my first example would be the fact that what should happen is a very narrow set of things while what happens is a very broad set of things.
I could not understand what you said here.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

again if he is all powerful he would have to do evil to accomplish good and if there is no way for god to accomplish the best outcome without doing some wrong then he is not all powerful because thats something he cant do.
Again, maybe God just decides to use evil. He told Abraham to sacrifice his own son (Gen 22). He tests us with evil. It's not that He has to use evil, but he chooses too.
For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

an all powerful god could prevent war if he wanted to without doing evil himself thats rediculous. way to use your imagination but thats all your using is your imagination and it shows big time.
It seems to align well with the OT character of God.
It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.

thats crap as ive just shown you because we know he is supposed to be all powerful while people starve and while children get raped. the best possible outcomes dont happen and its clearly randomness. there is ugly and pretty and evreything in between. there is retarded and genius and everything in between. there is fat and skinny and everything in between. with everything there is a scale from one to ten one being as bad as it can be and ten being as good as it can be and everything on that scale happens which suggests randomness. as i said what should happen is a very narrow set of things while what happens is a very very broad set of things. randomness. thats the only logical explanation unless god is bad.
What?
What do you think?
i think you would defend the bible no matter how horrible it was because you need to believe. i bet you cried when you found out santa clause was a lie and now that there is something just as implausible and fantastic as your child hood beliefs that adults believe in you have to believe in it. we dont choose our beliefs so there is no use getting angry at people for their beliefs but im angry that we have people who believe such crap. not angry at the people who believe it but if there is a god then im angry at him for not making humans smarter as there intelligence level is the biggest cause of evil leaving them not at fault and leaving god at fault as its his creation that is the cause of evil and it is not our faults for at least the most part.

Calm down, sir. Don't have a heart attack or aneurysm.
Let your words be the genuine picture of your heart- John Wesley
Money is a horrid thing to follow, but a charming thing to meet-Henry James
steffon66
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 2:06:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 12:14:15 PM, Ruckmanite wrote
Is there really such a thing as "innocent people?" Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned."

id say yes. my definition of innocent is someone who doesnt hurt others. not to mention this one of many places where the bible screws up big time. if nobody is perfect then we dont have the ability to be perfect and its likely that we dont have free will. but if nobody is perfect we definitely dont have the ability to be perfect. and if we dont have the ability to be perfect then we dont deserve punishment for not being perfect not to mention the evil in the world cant be dismissed as punishment as some horrible people live really good and some good people live really horrible lives. i guess you dont believe that gratuitous suffering exists. to that i say what about animals? they have nothing to learn from suffering and they arent going to live forever because they dont have souls according to the bible and they cant deserve it so why do animals suffer?

or God decides to use evil for His own purpose?

if god is using evil for his purposes then his purposes arent good purposes.
and im guessing you believe everything happens for a reason. is that true?

I could not understand what you said here.

well it was pretty simple but forget it.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

evil doesnt produce good outcomes. gratuitous suffering most definitely exists and if it doesnt then what have we done wrong if our evil produces the best outcomes. and if it doesnt then why would god want us to do evil such as own slaves and stuff and how did owning slaves help us achieve the best possible outcome? not to mention when are we going to see this best possible outcome? if you think this is the best possible outcome that an all powerful god could come up with then you are retarded. i dont need to know every possible outcome to know that this outcome isnt the best that an all powerful being could come up with.

Again, maybe God just decides to use evil. He told Abraham to sacrifice his own son (Gen 22). He tests us with evil. It's not that He has to use evil, but he chooses too.
For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

again if you think this is the best possible outcome that a perfect god could come up with then you are a retard not to mention instead of using evil to prevent evil he could have just taught us right from wrong instead of making us trust in the word of men and being ignorant of right and wrong thinking we were right while we were really doing wrong.

It seems to align well with the OT character of God.
It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.
i know that this isnt the best possible outcome and i dont need to know all the outcomes to know that this isnt the best possible outcome that a perfect all knowing and all powerful being could come up with. so your retarded if you dont know that. again he could have taught us and threatened us with afterlife consequences and that would have been enough. theres many things he could do better than he has done and i dont need to know every possible outcome to know that. you are proving how stupid you are in front of everyone reading this. your just another idiot who thinks hes found a way to justify a "perfect" gods evil and it doesnt go over so well with intelligent people.

Calm down, sir. Don't have a heart attack or aneurysm.

im calm. sorry for getting upset but people who defend a god who would allow children to starve while blessing others with material wealth and spiritual knowledge pis*es me off.
and given the fact that everybodies "spiritual knowledge" contradicts everyone elses "spiritual knowledge" i dont think it is that. (spiritual knowledge) and i dont think material wealth is the result of god blessing us either as like i said there are children starving and if god was powerful enough to bless you with things you dont need why would he do that before giving a child what they do need. this suggests randomness like everything else does when properly examined. but your a fool if you think that this or any place and time is the best possible outcome that a perfect all powerful being could come up with. it simply isnt. that isnt my opinion that is fact. tell me what good can come of children starving and suffering in other ways like slavery? if you cant then shut up.
Ruckmanite
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 12:46:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 2:06:02 PM, steffon66 wrote:
At 7/30/2014 12:14:15 PM, Ruckmanite wrote
Is there really such a thing as "innocent people?" Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned."

id say yes. my definition of innocent is someone who doesnt hurt others. not to mention this one of many places where the bible screws up big time. if nobody is perfect then we dont have the ability to be perfect and its likely that we dont have free will. but if nobody is perfect we definitely dont have the ability to be perfect. and if we dont have the ability to be perfect then we dont deserve punishment for not being perfect not to mention the evil in the world cant be dismissed as punishment as some horrible people live really good and some good people live really horrible lives. i guess you dont believe that gratuitous suffering exists. to that i say what about animals? they have nothing to learn from suffering and they arent going to live forever because they dont have souls according to the bible and they cant deserve it so why do animals suffer?

Ecclesiastes 3:19 states that animals have spirits which return to God. Though we aren't perfect, by accepting Christ as our Saviour, we appear sinless and perfect in the eyes of God allowing us into Heaven.

or God decides to use evil for His own purpose?

if god is using evil for his purposes then his purposes arent good purposes.
and im guessing you believe everything happens for a reason. is that true?

Yes, everything happens for a reason. The evil is just a means to an end. He could destroy evil, but then that would interfere with man's decision to disobey God and it would break God punishment over mankind.
I could not understand what you said here.

well it was pretty simple but forget it.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

evil doesnt produce good outcomes. gratuitous suffering most definitely exists and if it doesnt then what have we done wrong if our evil produces the best outcomes. and if it doesnt then why would god want us to do evil such as own slaves and stuff and how did owning slaves help us achieve the best possible outcome? not to mention when are we going to see this best possible outcome? if you think this is the best possible outcome that an all powerful god could come up with then you are retarded. i dont need to know every possible outcome to know that this outcome isnt the best that an all powerful being could come up with.
Slavery teaches respect, obedience, humility, and loyalty. The church of Laodicea which is highly rebuked by God in Rev 3 means "rights of the people" or Civil Rights in Greek. Clearly, God hates civil rights because it breeds contempt for others and uplifts pride, the primary sin of the Devil.
Again, maybe God just decides to use evil. He told Abraham to sacrifice his own son (Gen 22). He tests us with evil. It's not that He has to use evil, but he chooses too.
For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

again if you think this is the best possible outcome that a perfect god could come up with then you are a retard not to mention instead of using evil to prevent evil he could have just taught us right from wrong instead of making us trust in the word of men and being ignorant of right and wrong thinking we were right while we were really doing wrong.
He gave us the Ten Commandments to teach us right and wrong, but man chooses to disobey it.

It seems to align well with the OT character of God.
It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.
i know that this isnt the best possible outcome and i dont need to know all the outcomes to know that this isnt the best possible outcome that a perfect all knowing and all powerful being could come up with. so your retarded if you dont know that. again he could have taught us and threatened us with afterlife consequences and that would have been enough. theres many things he could do better than he has done and i dont need to know every possible outcome to know that. you are proving how stupid you are in front of everyone reading this. your just another idiot who thinks hes found a way to justify a "perfect" gods evil and it doesnt go over so well with intelligent people.
"Afterlife consequences" such as Hell is not enough now! There are millions of sins and crimes committed daily because men don't believe what God said.

Calm down, sir. Don't have a heart attack or aneurysm.

im calm. sorry for getting upset but people who defend a god who would allow children to starve while blessing others with material wealth and spiritual knowledge pis*es me off.
and given the fact that everybodies "spiritual knowledge" contradicts everyone elses "spiritual knowledge" i dont think it is that. (spiritual knowledge) and i dont think material wealth is the result of god blessing us either as like i said there are children starving and if god was powerful enough to bless you with things you dont need why would he do that before giving a child what they do need. this suggests randomness like everything else does when properly examined. but your a fool if you think that this or any place and time is the best possible outcome that a perfect all powerful being could come up with. it simply isnt. that isnt my opinion that is fact. tell me what good can come of children starving and suffering in other ways like slavery? if you cant then shut up.

It teaches children to depend upon God and miracles rather than on themselves. The main problem with Americans is that they believe they can do everything themselves, which creates envy, pride, and conceit.
Let your words be the genuine picture of your heart- John Wesley
Money is a horrid thing to follow, but a charming thing to meet-Henry James
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 1:25:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:49:11 AM, Ruckmanite wrote:
Atheists often object to the God of the Bible on account of what ostensibly appear to be immoral actions, such as genocide, slavery, war, etc. However, if one assumes that God is utilitarian, then his actions become vindicated.

Utilitarianism is the belief that you're supposed to perform the action which produces the most utility or good. Even if the means are bad, the overall outcome is for the most good to occur.

Using this definition then, no human being could ever be utilitarian because one would have to know ALL possible outcomes that an action could result in. It's only after knowing EVERY POSSIBLE outcome that one could take the course of action that promotes the most utility. Obviously then, God is the only one with this ability.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.

What do you think?

I suspect you have a double standard. You don't apply this kind of reasoning to any God. Just bible God, the bible God as you have being instructed to believe in.

Maybe "insert God here" wanted that child to be raped and tortured ? who are you to question such a God ?

If we all start going down that road...................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ruckmanite
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 1:38:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 1:25:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:49:11 AM, Ruckmanite wrote:
Atheists often object to the God of the Bible on account of what ostensibly appear to be immoral actions, such as genocide, slavery, war, etc. However, if one assumes that God is utilitarian, then his actions become vindicated.

Utilitarianism is the belief that you're supposed to perform the action which produces the most utility or good. Even if the means are bad, the overall outcome is for the most good to occur.

Using this definition then, no human being could ever be utilitarian because one would have to know ALL possible outcomes that an action could result in. It's only after knowing EVERY POSSIBLE outcome that one could take the course of action that promotes the most utility. Obviously then, God is the only one with this ability.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.

What do you think?

I suspect you have a double standard. You don't apply this kind of reasoning to any God. Just bible God, the bible God as you have being instructed to believe in.

Maybe "insert God here" wanted that child to be raped and tortured ? who are you to question such a God ?

He very well could.
If we all start going down that road...................
Let your words be the genuine picture of your heart- John Wesley
Money is a horrid thing to follow, but a charming thing to meet-Henry James
steffon66
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 10:53:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ecclesiastes 3:19 states that animals have spirits which return to God. Though we aren't perfect, by accepting Christ as our Saviour, we appear sinless and perfect in the eyes of God allowing us into Heaven.

ok dont see what that has to do with anything but ok


if god is using evil for his purposes then his purposes arent good purposes.
and im guessing you believe everything happens for a reason. is that true?

Yes, everything happens for a reason. The evil is just a means to an end. He could destroy evil, but then that would interfere with man's decision to disobey God and it would break God punishment over mankind.

ok well if everything happens for a reason then everything happens according to a plan. and if everything happens according to a plan then we do what we do because god planned for us to do it so we dont have free will. what we do is something that happens and your saying it happens for gods reasons means it doesnt happen for our reasons. if we have free will then many things happen for our reasons which arent almost ever good reasons. so you contradict yourself by believing in free will and that everything happens for a reason. if everything happens for a reason then why should we be punished for evil because if its happening for a good reason then we are doing gods work by doing evil.

well it was pretty simple but forget it.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?
and again you think this is the best possible outcome that a perfect all powerful etc. god could come up with? doesnt take a smart guy to dismiss that dogma.


Again, maybe God just decides to use evil.

if he is using evil then he is in control and we are not. again your contradicting our free will. if we cant choose to do anything thats bad for other people and if everything we do is good for other people then why should we go to hell? and that would mean that god is in control over us and i thought we had free will according to the bible.


again if you think this is the best possible outcome that a perfect god could come up with then you are a retard not to mention instead of using evil to prevent evil he could have just taught us right from wrong instead of making us trust in the word of men and being ignorant of right and wrong thinking we were right while we were really doing wrong.
He gave us the Ten Commandments to teach us right and wrong, but man chooses to disobey it.

yes all men choose to disobey it. and if nobody is perfect then we dont have the ability to be perfect and if we dont have the ability to be perfect then we shouldnt be punished for not being perfect.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 11:01:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ooboo, the creation of Ugg is the one true god. Read your cave walls if you have doubts. Cave walls don't lie.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 7:20:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:49:11 AM, Ruckmanite wrote:
Atheists often object to the God of the Bible on account of what ostensibly appear to be immoral actions, such as genocide, slavery, war, etc. However, if one assumes that God is utilitarian, then his actions become vindicated.

Utilitarianism is the belief that you're supposed to perform the action which produces the most utility or good. Even if the means are bad, the overall outcome is for the most good to occur.

Using this definition then, no human being could ever be utilitarian because one would have to know ALL possible outcomes that an action could result in. It's only after knowing EVERY POSSIBLE outcome that one could take the course of action that promotes the most utility. Obviously then, God is the only one with this ability.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.

What do you think?

I, too, am a utilitarian.

A few points:

1. No one ever knows all possible outcomes. Does that mean that we have no right to question any other human being on their moral behavior? If you think that not knowing for sure means we can't question, then we also shouldn't be putting people in jail. We don't know if what they did was really bad.

2. I assume we're talking about an omnipotent God. I'm also assuming that God does not play dice- that is, he knows exactly how any universe he creates will turn out at any point in time. If both of these are true, then it holds that God could have created the universe so that the bad things you speak of didn't happen in the first place. He wouldn't have to negotiate lesser/greater evils.

3. As someone else mentioned, this could be applied to virtually any God. For instance, moral criticisms of the Olympian gods are now invalid, if your argument holds.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 1:00:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 9:55:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
I personally prefer the first god ever created. It was called Ooboo.

One sentence smart alec reply that contributes nothing. Good job being a waste of space.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 11:06:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 7:20:41 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:49:11 AM, Ruckmanite wrote:
Atheists often object to the God of the Bible on account of what ostensibly appear to be immoral actions, such as genocide, slavery, war, etc. However, if one assumes that God is utilitarian, then his actions become vindicated.

Utilitarianism is the belief that you're supposed to perform the action which produces the most utility or good. Even if the means are bad, the overall outcome is for the most good to occur.

Using this definition then, no human being could ever be utilitarian because one would have to know ALL possible outcomes that an action could result in. It's only after knowing EVERY POSSIBLE outcome that one could take the course of action that promotes the most utility. Obviously then, God is the only one with this ability.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.

What do you think?

I, too, am a utilitarian.

A few points:

1. No one ever knows all possible outcomes. Does that mean that we have no right to question any other human being on their moral behavior? If you think that not knowing for sure means we can't question, then we also shouldn't be putting people in jail. We don't know if what they did was really bad.

2. I assume we're talking about an omnipotent God. I'm also assuming that God does not play dice- that is, he knows exactly how any universe he creates will turn out at any point in time. If both of these are true, then it holds that God could have created the universe so that the bad things you speak of didn't happen in the first place. He wouldn't have to negotiate lesser/greater evils.

3. As someone else mentioned, this could be applied to virtually any God. For instance, moral criticisms of the Olympian gods are now invalid, if your argument holds.
1. Even the God of the Bible who knows all places rules. Just because a man named Solomon who's words of wisdom are acknowledged and gleaned from to this day does not mean it was okay for King David to commit murder and adultery which eventually lead to the birth of this wise man. We can assume that if we can trust the actions of an all knowing creator, we can trust His laws, many of which are universally accepted without regard to religion.

2. Since God provided the ability to choose, the only alternative would be non-existence. To have never been created. Is that really an option? Do you think that in the context of the Biblical sphere of reality that no one should have ever been born?

3. I'm not so how many Greek gods are actually considered to be utilitarian. There's some odd actions amongst many legendary gods that seem to be conveyed as equivalent to human flaw. We see this particularly in the Japanese Shinto religion for instance.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 11:11:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 1:00:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:55:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
I personally prefer the first god ever created. It was called Ooboo.

One sentence smart alec reply that contributes nothing. Good job being a waste of space.

Frightening, isn't it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 3:30:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 12:02:59 PM, Ruckmanite wrote:
At 7/30/2014 10:13:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/30/2014 9:49:11 AM, Ruckmanite wrote:
Atheists often object to the God of the Bible on account of what ostensibly appear to be immoral actions, such as genocide, slavery, war, etc. However, if one assumes that God is utilitarian, then his actions become vindicated.

Utilitarianism is the belief that you're supposed to perform the action which produces the most utility or good. Even if the means are bad, the overall outcome is for the most good to occur.

Using this definition then, no human being could ever be utilitarian because one would have to know ALL possible outcomes that an action could result in. It's only after knowing EVERY POSSIBLE outcome that one could take the course of action that promotes the most utility. Obviously then, God is the only one with this ability.

Assuming God is utilitarian then, who are we to question His actions in the Bible? Ostensibly, they appear immoral, especially in the Old Testament, but could it be that God saw that these actions produce the most good in the long run?

For instance, perhaps by commanding the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites, jebusites, perizzites, hittites, etc, He prevented the children of these nations from committing even greater war. Or perhaps God allowed Hitler to carry out the Holocaust and exterminate six million Jews so that the U.N. would have sympathy and compassion for His people, and thereby allow Israel to become a nation once again.
Perhaps God wanted Hitler to survive his assassination attempts or otherwise a worse dictator would have come to power?

It seems that unless someone knows ALL possible outcomes we have no right to question the God of the Bible.

What do you think?

Well, for one, utilitarianism is false.
you say this with no evidence to support your claim.


You're the one advocating utilitarianism - what reasons do you have for thinking it's true?

Besides, thie simple implication that this could be turn out to be true on utilitarianism is reason enough to think it's false:

"Suppose that a sheriff were faced with the choice either of framing a Negro for a rape that had aroused hostility to the Negroes (a particular Negro generally being believed to be guilty but whom the sheriff knows not to be guilty)"and thus preventing serious anti-Negro riots which would probably lead to some loss of life and increased hatred of each other by whites and Negroes"or of hunting for the guilty person and thereby allowing the anti-Negro riots to occur, while doing the best he can to combat them. In such a case the sheriff, if he were an extreme utilitarian, would appear to be committed to framing the Negro."

And, two, relating to one, there's a reason why the vast majority of Christian intellectuals aren't utilitarians. Most hold to the Kantian "respect for persons" ethic, and rightly so.

Kant believed the moral standard was greater than God; that is, that God himself would have to obey the moral law.

If God has a moral nature, naturally, he would act according to that nature. Persons are treated as ends themselves. Utilitarianism implies that persons can be treated as means.

But doesn't this naturally suppose that God is not all good, if even He needs a standard to be judged by?

No.

I assume that you're Kantian mainly because of the "love for others" message in the NT, but really even the crucifixion of Christ is utilitarian. God sacrificed His Son for the salvation of mankind, i.e. producing the most good.

Nope. It can be given various spins under different ethical systems (virtue theory, kantian, etc).
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!