Why is God not held to the same moral standard as man?

[Mutcer]

If God knows the future, can do anything, cares about us all and loves us all (as Christians say), then why didn't he alert the folks of Haiti that there would be a massive earthquake which would kill some 200,000 people and destroy their largest city? Perhaps he could have saved thousands of lives and averted the pain and suffering a lot of loved ones had to go through?

If you were standing on a bluff 200 feet above the ocean, you knew a tsunami was coming in and saw some people on the beach, it would be your moral obligation to alert those people below that a tsunami was on it's way and would kill them if they didn't get to higher ground.

Yet God is not expected to alert the folks of Haiti that a deadly earthquake is about to occur? Seems like God doesn't follow the same moral standard that we are expected to follow.

[fuse]

Are you willing to accept that there is a level of "goodness" which transcends your understanding?

No? Yeah, me neither.

[Flannel Jesus]

Sorry to be the one to tell you this: the God you're speaking of -- in all likelihood he doesn't exist.

[Uccisore]

There's a million threads here already about the Problem of Evil, the only person on these forums interested in putting forward a theodicy to defend it is me, and I don't post often enough to be bothered.

Why don't you try asking questions like this where somebody might answer them? You've been on these forums for a while now, Mutcer. Has anything about this place given you the impression that there's a crop of theists hanging around waiting to answer your criticisms of their beliefs?

[omar]

Can you demonstrate the necessity that God can even be held by the same standards as man?
Why is He not held by the same standards? Well, one can start by pointing out that God and men are not the same, so the standard of one cannot be applicable, necessarily, to the other.

[Mutcer]

Are you willing to accept that there is a level of "goodness" which transcends your understanding?

No? Yeah, me neither.

Give me an example of a type of goodness which would transcend the understanding of a human being?

[Mutcer]

Sorry to be the one to tell you this: the God you're speaking of -- in all likelihood he doesn't exist.

That is the assumption I am operating under. However, I wish to give Christians the benefit of the doubt and have given them every opportunity possible to show me that the God they're talking about exists. But they show me nothing.

[Mutcer]

Can you demonstrate the necessity that God can even be held by the same standards as man?
Why is He not held by the same standards? Well, one can start by pointing out that God and men are not the same, so the standard of one cannot be applicable, necessarily, to the other.

Both have moral standards. The difference is that if man observes another man about to get swept away by a tsunami, he'll try to save him. God - if he exists and can do anything and knows everything - could have saved the people of Haiti from the destructive earthquake, something he chose not to do.

[omar]

Hello Mutcer.

--- Both have moral standards. The difference is that if man observes another man about to get swept away by a tsunami, he'll try to save him.
O- Would he? Man is a wolf to other men...sometimes. It is man that makes war to other men, man that does drown, stabs and beheads other men, so your observation is not easily demonstrable and you have history to contend with. I wish it was as you say.
As for both having moral standards, that is never the problem but neither the solution. Moral standards, all of them, judge some good, some evil and God, as well as men, have shown intlerance towards what is evil. However none of that answers my question as to the necessity that His ways, His morals, should be the same as ours so that WE may stand and judge Him by OUR standards.

--- God - if he exists and can do anything and knows everything - could have saved the people of Haiti from the destructive earthquake, something he chose not to do.
O- Fine. So? Held to our standards that is bad. But the question is whether it is logically necessary or valid to do so? You can say you don't know why He let it or made it happen, but between Him and the people of Haiti there is not a common morality, a common Law that rules over them both and that both must adhere to, just like there isn't between a robot and the robot maker, the Potter and His pots.

[Jayson]

If God knows the future, can do anything, cares about us all and loves us all (as Christians say), then why didn't he alert the folks of Haiti that there would be a massive earthquake which would kill some 200,000 people and destroy their largest city? Perhaps he could have saved thousands of lives and averted the pain and suffering a lot of loved ones had to go through?

If you were standing on a bluff 200 feet above the ocean, you knew a tsunami was coming in and saw some people on the beach, it would be your moral obligation to alert those people below that a tsunami was on it's way and would kill them if they didn't get to higher ground.

Yet God is not expected to alert the folks of Haiti that a deadly earthquake is about to occur? Seems like God doesn't follow the same moral standard that we are expected to follow.

I've said it before and I'll say it again..."Waaaaaa! God's not fair!"
And?
So what if he isn't?
What are you going to do?
Do you know how many flipping gods have been worshiped throughout human history that are fair?
That's right...fewer than you have fingers.

God is "fair", "loving", etc... and all of this shit because the people worshiping that god value striving to be fair, humane, loving, and what they consider morally good in nature.
Whether they achieve this crap is another matter, but these are the things which they value.

It really doesn't say jack shit about a god because the ancestors to the same narrative figure didn't hold him to be all lovey carebear to every wrangling wanna-be-human animal on the planet.
You had to be worthy of being the human class for their god to like you. Otherwise, fuck off and die painfully.

So again, so the fuck what if God's not fair?
What are you going to do? Take him to civil court?

[Xunzian]

It is worth pointing out that God isn't human, so why should He be held to a human standard? Think about it: What are we, compared to God?

The answer is simple: nothing.

As a scientist, at work I'll gladly kill literally trillions of organisms so that a few thousand survive.
In time, those too will be killed so I can extract from them what I need.

Assuming God is as far above man as the Judeo-Christian tradition assumes, my slaughter of E. coli and, to a lesser extent, mice is nothing to worry about. The gulf between man and God is far greater than the gulf between man and E. coli, much less man and mouse.

The mice and E. coli might think me capricious, mad, or even genocidal and evil. From their perspective, they may well even be right. But we aren't measuring me by their perspective. Nor are they capable of understanding my perspective -- even if I did my best to clearly convey it to them.

[omar]

It is worth pointing out that God isn't human, so why should He be held to a human standard? Think about it: What are we, compared to God?

The answer is simple: nothing.

As a scientist, at work I'll gladly kill literally trillions of organisms so that a few thousand survive.
In time, those too will be killed so I can extract from them what I need.

Assuming God is as far above man as the Judeo-Christian tradition assumes, my slaughter of E. coli and, to a lesser extent, mice is nothing to worry about. The gulf between man and God is far greater than the gulf between man and E. coli, much less man and mouse.

The mice and E. coli might think me capricious, mad, or even genocidal and evil. From their perspective, they may well even be right. But we aren't measuring me by their perspective. Nor are they capable of understanding my perspective -- even if I did my best to clearly convey it to them.

Do you love your mice? Do you tell them how special they are to you that you would die in their stead...right before you kill them? See I don't deny the confusion, inherent in the language used; I just question the application of our concepts straight to God.

[Xunzian]

I do love my mice and they are special to me. Very special to me. As are the E. coli that I create vectors for. Do I suffer for them? All the time, that is part of working with them.

[Stoic Guardian]

If God knows the future, can do anything, cares about us all and loves us all (as Christians say), then why didn't he alert the folks of Haiti that there would be a massive earthquake which would kill some 200,000 people and destroy their largest city? Perhaps he could have saved thousands of lives and averted the pain and suffering a lot of loved ones had to go through?

If you were standing on a bluff 200 feet above the ocean, you knew a tsunami was coming in and saw some people on the beach, it would be your moral obligation to alert those people below that a tsunami was on it's way and would kill them if they didn't get to higher ground.

Yet God is not expected to alert the folks of Haiti that a deadly earthquake is about to occur? Seems like God doesn't follow the same moral standard that we are expected to follow.

Is Heaven not a generous compensation? The Problem with "The problem of Evil" is that it presumes too much.

That God can be fully comprehended.
That we know better than God does.
That Death is bad.

I certainly don't agree with these.

[Mutcer]

If God knows the future, can do anything, cares about us all and loves us all (as Christians say), then why didn't he alert the folks of Haiti that there would be a massive earthquake which would kill some 200,000 people and destroy their largest city? Perhaps he could have saved thousands of lives and averted the pain and suffering a lot of loved ones had to go through?

If you were standing on a bluff 200 feet above the ocean, you knew a tsunami was coming in and saw some people on the beach, it would be your moral obligation to alert those people below that a tsunami was on it's way and would kill them if they didn't get to higher ground.

Yet God is not expected to alert the folks of Haiti that a deadly earthquake is about to occur? Seems like God doesn't follow the same moral standard that we are expected to follow.

Is Heaven not a generous compensation? The Problem with "The problem of Evil" is that it presumes too much.

That God can be fully comprehended.
That we know better than God does.
That Death is bad.

I certainly don't agree with these.

If death is bad, then why do we instinctively try to avoid it?
God doesn't seem to know what it takes to get us to believe he exists - or he doesn't care if we believe he exists.

[fuse]

Since this thread is active again...

Are you willing to accept that there is a level of "goodness" which transcends your understanding?

No? Yeah, me neither.

Give me an example of a type of goodness which would transcend the understanding of a human being?

That was my point..I don't know of one, and if there is one (as many attribute to God) I don't see how it makes sense to be bound by principles/ideas that are impossible for me to understand. The OP boils down to the question "Are you willing to accept that there is a level of 'goodness' which transcends your understanding?" I've given my answer.

[Dan~]

There's a million threads here already about the Problem of Evil,

This isn't about the problem of evil.
This is just about if there was an earth quake, it screws people over.
God is all powerful and craeted the earth. he decided to make the earth have earthquakes, but knows they cause death and destruction.
He doesn't warn people or save them from earthquakes.

He made an earth where beings must kill to survive.
He made dormant genes in humans so that some are born with a tail.

God's done some pretty wacky stuff.

[Dan~]

It is worth pointing out that God isn't human, so why should He be held to a human standard? Think about it: What are we, compared to God?

The bible clearly states that humanoid angels and bright lights and god and jesus as being in human forms, having human like emotions.
They have them more intensely, but they still have them.

Jesus said not one sparrow falls without God knowing.

Got could have made dna way different so that we didn't get birth defects and stuff, but no.

The christian god is a hateful failure god which creates things then considers then sinful and crappy, but the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[James S Saint]

Give me an example of a type of goodness which would transcend the understanding of a human being?

The creation of the universe.

Can you demonstrate the necessity that God can even be held by the same standards as man? Why is He not held by the same standards? Well, one can start by pointing out that God and men are not the same, so the standard of one cannot be applicable, necessarily, to the other.

Definitely the best reply so far.

What are you going to do? Take him to civil court?

Haha.. There is a reason they call Him "God".

It is worth pointing out that God isn't human, so why should He be held to a human standard? Think about it: What are we, compared to God?

The answer is simple: nothing.

As a scientist, at work I'll gladly kill literally trillions of organisms so that a few thousand survive.
In time, those too will be killed so I can extract from them what I need.

Assuming God is as far above man as the Judeo-Christian tradition assumes, my slaughter of E. coli and, to a lesser extent, mice is nothing to worry about. The gulf between man and God is far greater than the gulf between man and E. coli, much less man and mouse.

The mice and E. coli might think me capricious, mad, or even genocidal and evil. From their perspective, they may well even be right. But we aren't measuring me by their perspective. Nor are they capable of understanding my perspective -- even if I did my best to clearly convey it to them.

Exactly

God's done some pretty wacky stuff.

By HUE-of-MAN standards.

That is the assumption I am operating under. However, I wish to give Christians the benefit of the doubt and have given them every opportunity possible to show me that the God they're talking about exists. But they show me nothing.

YOU not seeing is not equal to them not showing.
.
.

[Dan~]

God's done some pretty wacky stuff.

By HUE-of-MAN standards.

Human standards aren't perfect but we do have some common sense.

Assuming God is as far above man as the Judeo-Christian tradition assumes, my slaughter of E. coli and, to a lesser extent, mice is nothing to worry about. The gulf between man and God is far greater than the gulf between man and E. coli, much less man and mouse.

Why create something if you're going to just destroy it or let it die?

[James S Saint]

God's done some pretty wacky stuff.

By HUE-of-MAN standards.

Human standards aren't perfect but we do have some common sense.

"Common" being a key word.

Assuming God is as far above man as the Judeo-Christian tradition assumes, my slaughter of E. coli and, to a lesser extent, mice is nothing to worry about. The gulf between man and God is far greater than the gulf between man and E. coli, much less man and mouse.

Why create something if you're going to just destroy it or let it die?

Don't people grow entire crops merely to eat the fruits?

Why assume that the intermediate steps are the goal?
Why propose that God wouldn't take those steps?
..I know, because YOU think He wouldn't IF He was so vastly more intelligent than You (what's wrong with that presumption ).

A god is a god merely because it determines what can or cannot be.

[Mutcer]

Sam Harris sums this up very well in his debate with William Lane Craig.

Alright, nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five. ok, picture, picture a, a a Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004, that killed a quarter of a million people. One of those, every ten days, killing children only under five. Ok, that’s 20, 24,000 children a day, a thousand an hour, 17 or so a minute. That means before I can get to the end of this sentence, some few children, very likely, will have died in terror and agony. Ok,, think of, think of the parents of these children. Think of the fact that most of these men and women believe in God, and are praying at this moment for their children to be spared. And their prayers will not be answered. Ok, but according to Dr. Craig, this is all part of God’s plan. Any God who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way, and their parents to grieve in this way, either can do nothing to help them, or doesn’t care to. He is therefore either impotent or evil.

[Typist]

However, I wish to give Christians the benefit of the doubt and have given them every opportunity possible to show me that the God they're talking about exists. But they show me nothing.

I wish to give atheists the benefit of the doubt and have given them every opportunity possible to show me that their ability to analyze questions of infinite scale exists. But they show me nothing.

Unless you can provide evidence that you Mutcer are in a position to know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality, then no such ability can be said to exist.

Your own reasoning, applied to your own position.

If you reject even your own reasoning, then we can safely assume you are not interested in reason.

[Moreno]

Sorry to be the one to tell you this: the God you're speaking of -- in all likelihood he doesn't exist.

That is the assumption I am operating under. However, I wish to give Christians the benefit of the doubt and have given them every opportunity possible to show me that the God they're talking about exists. But they show me nothing.

If you are interested in being shown, then it makes sense to follow the practices of the religion, since this is how one comes to a belief if one does not have it and how one is supposed to get closer to God. IOW usually a long dedicated set of practices to alter you, your way of relating and experiencing and which is supposed to give you different experiences than the ones you can have now. Pretty much every religion stresses practices and attitudinals shifts which coupled lead to experiences. But for some reason atheists and also a good number of theists seem to think atheists will change their minds or gain meaningful experiences via arguments.

That is just silly.

If you are not interested, then don't, obviously.

[Mutcer]

However, I wish to give Christians the benefit of the doubt and have given them every opportunity possible to show me that the God they're talking about exists. But they show me nothing.

I wish to give atheists the benefit of the doubt and have given them every opportunity possible to show me that their ability to analyze questions of infinite scale exists. But they show me nothing.

Unless you can provide evidence that you Mutcer are in a position to know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality, then no such ability can be said to exist.

Your own reasoning, applied to your own position.

If you reject even your own reasoning, then we can safely assume you are not interested in reason.

I can only go as far as saying I know factually that omniscience and omnipotence aren't compatible with each other. Other than that, I merely don't believe that a supreme being exists.

Unlike what it appears most Christians fail to do, I do investigate claims in a rational, responsible and intelligent manner. If Christians were to investigate the claims of miracles in the Bible in a rational, responsible and intelligent manner, most would likely find that it is more plausible that the miracles did not occur than that they did occur.