# Does God Love Everyone? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590 "2010-06-09T23:01:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/161 "2010-06-13T16:52:03Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Here are more Einstein quotes, the Internet is full of them. > [http://www.sonic.net/~gralsto/einstein/quotes.html](http://www.sonic.net/~gralsto/einstein/quotes.html) > > There is no doubt Einstein believed in God. [Great Minds: Atheist Quotes](http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=9) Here’s some doubt for you from Einstein own words. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/162 "2010-06-13T17:19:34Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > So why did he let them all die? Had they fulfilled his divine purpose? No one dies we are all eternal. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/163 "2010-06-13T17:21:36Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > One way to make the traditional conception of God (in the west) more consistent is to get rid of the assertion that God loves everyone. It’s not consistent with God’s loving a person that God would decree an eternity in Hell for that person. > > And there’s plenty of scriptural support for the idea that there are people God doesn’t love. > > On the other hand, the traditional conception could also be made more consistent by getting rid of the idea of an eternal Hell. And it turns out there’s more scriptural support than most people know for the idea that the Lake of Fire doesn’t last forever. > > The latter is my preferred option, but I think (mostly) reasonable people can insist on the eternity of Hell and swallow the non-all-loving version of God. No one goes to an eteral hell, God punishes no one. What punishment we perceive to get comes solely from our own actions. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/164 "2010-06-13T17:29:45Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Great Minds: Atheist Quotes](http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=9) Here’s some doubt for you from Einstein own words. He repeatedly said he didn’t believe in a personal God. I don’t believe in a personal God. That does not mean you are an atheist. He said he would be an atheist in the eyes of the priest. I would be an atheist in the eyes of the church I grew up in. God is in all creation, intelligence directing that creation, wherever where you look is God, intelligent Love, recreating itself over and over again. That is what Einstein saw and felt, it is what I see and feel, and millions of others do also. You reach that point in your life not through logic or rational thought, but through your feelings, intuition, and knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/165 "2010-06-13T17:41:57Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > There is nothing wrong with a non-personal God. Millions of people believe in a non-personal God. However if you seek and knock you will find **God is not so non-personal** any more. > [@lekatt](#): > > He repeatedly said he didn’t believe in a personal God. **I don’t believe in a personal God.** (emphasis mine) It might help resolve this contradiction if you explain what you mean by “personal God.” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/166 "2010-06-13T18:13:58Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > He repeatedly said he didn’t believe in a personal God. I don’t believe in a personal God. That does not mean you are an atheist. He said he would be an atheist in the eyes of the priest. I would be an atheist in the eyes of the church I grew up in. God is in all creation, intelligence directing that creation, wherever where you look is God, intelligent Love, recreating itself over and over again. That is what Einstein saw and felt, it is what I see and feel, and millions of others do also. You reach that point in your life not through logic or rational thought, but through your feelings, intuition, and knowledge. Then I believe the discussion of your god is off-topic for this thread, which is about the actions and inclinations of the deity discussed in the Old Testament. If your god is not the god of the Bible, it is the wrong god for the purposes of this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/167 "2010-06-13T18:41:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Then I believe the discussion of your god is off-topic for this thread, which is about the actions and inclinations of the deity discussed in the Old Testament. If your god is not the god of the Bible, it is the wrong god for the purposes of this discussion. That’s what _I_ said! He rejected that, though I wasn’t able to make much sense of his reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/168 "2010-06-13T18:45:41Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Great Minds: Atheist Quotes](http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=9) Here’s some doubt for you from Einstein own words. > [@lekatt](#): > > He repeatedly said he didn’t believe in a personal God. I don’t believe in a personal God. That does not mean you are an atheist. He said he would be an atheist in the eyes of the priest. I would be an atheist in the eyes of the church I grew up in. God is in all creation, intelligence directing that creation, wherever where you look is God, intelligent Love, recreating itself over and over again. That is what Einstein saw and felt, it is what I see and feel, and millions of others do also. You reach that point in your life not through logic or rational thought, but through your feelings, intuition, and knowledge. > [@Nature\_s\_Call](#): > > (emphasis mine) > > It might help resolve this contradiction if you explain what you mean by “personal God.” I posted multiple times that everyone was to refrain from this stupid hijack. This is a Warning to each of you that you are out of line. Take it to a new thread. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/169 "2010-06-13T19:57:53Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > That’s what _I_ said! He rejected that, though I wasn’t able to make much sense of his reasoning. So we listen to the mods and stay on topic, o.k.? Could an all-loving god have done something other than kill almost single living creature on this earth to show his displeasure? If not, could he have found a less hideous way than drowning? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/170 "2010-06-13T20:28:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I posted multiple times that everyone was to refrain from this stupid hijack. > > This is a Warning to each of you that you are out of line. Take it to a new thread. > > [/Moderating] Where are the warnings to Czarcism for his insults and personal attacks on me? For the “bating” comments made by him and many others in this thread, where were the mods then. Oh well, If you wanted me to quit, I quit. Another victory for the mods. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/171 "2010-06-13T20:49:17Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So we listen to the mods and stay on topic, o.k.? > Could an all-loving god have done something other than kill almost single living creature on this earth to show his displeasure? If not, could he have found a less hideous way than drowning? It depends a bit on how you define “all-loving”. Okay, it depends _entirely_ on how you define “all-loving”. Also one should first establish whether the god in question is clueless or insane - maybe he thinks that torture and/or drowning or whatever is no big deal if you awaken a moment later gasping and terrified in an afterlife. Yes omniscience would be an argument against cluelessness and maybe against insanity - but correct me if I’m wrong but this sort of omniscience isn’t explicitly in the text in question. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/172 "2010-06-13T20:49:27Z")
When people say that the God of the Bible loves everyone because “God is Love”, what precisely is the definition of love being used here? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/173 "2010-06-13T20:54:48Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > When people say that the God of the Bible loves everyone because “God is Love”, what precisely is the definition of love being used here? Probably the usual one - he doubtless meant “God is love incarnate” in the same sense that I am brilliance and awesomnity personified. but that doesn’t mean the speaker was _right_. The word of Mod says that “The presumption is that the Scriptures so referenced identify the actions of a particular being/Being in a particular way. Even if such actions are fictional, you will stick to that premise for all future posts.” Mivine declaration does _not_ say that any of the spontanous declarations of opinion by God’s fanboys in that text are factually correct too. I don’t think. We’d better hope not, because tales of God’s actions are contradictory enough. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/174 "2010-06-13T22:22:24Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > You know, I think this might actually help clear up the discussion, now that I think about it. Basically, I like to describe my belief as saying God is the ultimate dominoes player. Being omnipotent and omniscient, God is capable of setting up a set of dominoes in such a way that he knows exactly how and when each domino in the series will fall. As such, it seems more consistent to me that God would set up the dominoes to fall exactly how he wants them to and then sort of kick them off. A God that has to keep stepping in and making adjustments seems to me to be a sign that either he didn’t know exactly how they would fall, violating omniscience, or that he wasn’t able to set them up that way, violating omnipotence. Of course, he is capable of intervening, it just seems, for lack of a better term… weak. > > Now, that’s not to say that he doesn’t have a way of influencing action, but it’s all part of that ultimate game of dominoes, as he’d know exactly what needed to happen when, so why would he reach in and intervene when he could have set up the natural process to do exactly what he wanted to happen at exactly the right time? Uhhh, what you’ve described isn’t really a game of dominoes… ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/175 "2010-06-13T22:26:37Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > One way to make the traditional conception of God (in the west) more consistent is to get rid of the assertion that God loves everyone. It’s not consistent with God’s loving a person that God would decree an eternity in Hell for that person. > > And there’s plenty of scriptural support for the idea that there are people God doesn’t love. > > On the other hand, the traditional conception could also be made more consistent by getting rid of the idea of an eternal Hell. And it turns out there’s more scriptural support than most people know for the idea that the Lake of Fire doesn’t last forever. > > **The latter is my preferred option** , but I think (mostly) reasonable people can insist on the eternity of Hell and swallow the non-all-loving version of God. Probably works better that way, since TTBOMK, Hell as place of eternal penal torment doesn’t enter into Hebrew Scripture/Old Testament text. ---
**Author:** ![Dostoyevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Dostoyevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dostoyevsky)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/176 "2010-06-13T22:31:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > When people say that the God of the Bible loves everyone because “God is Love”, what precisely is the definition of love being used here? I can answer this from a Baptist perspective, as I used to be one. The idea that God is Love simply means… yeah. No one knows, at least not from a metaphysical perspective. What it means from a practical standpoint usually translates into a self fulfilling prophecy, as in, “If you believe God loves you then he does, and if you don’t believe he loves you then he doesn’t.” This is so because most Baptists are Calvinistic if not actual Calvinists. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/177 "2010-06-14T17:11:48Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > You know, I think this might actually help clear up the discussion, now that I think about it. Basically, I like to describe my belief as saying God is the ultimate dominoes player. Being omnipotent and omniscient, God is capable of setting up a set of dominoes in such a way that he knows exactly how and when each domino in the series will fall. As such, it seems more consistent to me that God would set up the dominoes to fall exactly how he wants them to and then sort of kick them off. A God that has to keep stepping in and making adjustments seems to me to be a sign that either he didn’t know exactly how they would fall, violating omniscience, or that he wasn’t able to set them up that way, violating omnipotence. Of course, he is capable of intervening, it just seems, for lack of a better term… weak. > > Now, that’s not to say that he doesn’t have a way of influencing action, but it’s all part of that ultimate game of dominoes, as he’d know exactly what needed to happen when, so why would he reach in and intervene when he could have set up the natural process to do exactly what he wanted to happen at exactly the right time? > > That is, if we’re viewing something as a miracle, like say when Elijah’s challenge to the followers of Baal. Let us say, for the sake of this point, that the events happened more or less as described. Obviously God could create fire then and and there, but that is more of an interventionalist type of God. Instead, I think it was probably a natural phenomenon. The miracle in either case, isn’t whether or not reached in and manipulated the laws of physics, but that it happened exactly in accordance with the predictions of the prophet. > > …I hope my explanation makes sense, it’s something I’ve had difficulty articulating in the past. I can understand that idea - it was one of the reasons I excepted evolutionary theory as a Christian. The problem with this view is that it sets the stage - there’s very little wiggle room for free will (if there is any). It also makes me wonder why the dominoes were set up in this way as opposed to another way. I’m not sure that I’m convinced by the naturalizing of miracles. It seems to me that if you strip the miracles out of the Bible, then you have a tough footing for claiming divine ownership. At the same time, it seems unnecessary if it’s all set up for accuracy in prophecies - it seems too ‘rules driven’, to confining, to have God set up the universe so that the natural coincides with the miraculous. That’s not to say it’s impossible or wrong or anything - btw. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Don’t get me wrong, I certainly think our decisions are heavily influenced by all the factors that you indicate. In fact, in some ways our histories and physiology can eliminate or force certain options in some cases, but I think in most they simply serve as weighting mechanisms; however, I don’t see how it makes things chaotic. That, to me, seems to assume that, once those weights are established, that we’re going to choose randomly amongst them with those constraints. I get that that’s probably the only meaningful way to deterministically model it because that’s just how non-deterministic processes appear within a deterministic frame of reference. The chaos is in a freely chosen action - if the choice isn’t coming from history, biology, or chemical configurations, then what is the choice being based on? > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I have a hard time buying that. Going back to the tic-tac-toe example, I could play any number of games against an opponent of any skill level and never lose; I’d say that would qualify me as a perfect player. The reason I make those decisions isn’t because I’m forced to by the quality of being a perfect player, but because my decisions will be consistent with my motivation, which is to never lose. Am I unable to make a sub-optimal move? Absolutely not. > > That is, I think the description of “perfect” is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, it is an emergent property that arises from omniscience because he is able to determine, even in the massive statespace that is the universe, exactly what the ideal action is for any given state. > > And this is all the makes us not perfect, is our inability to necessarily determine that a particular action will necessarily be the optimal one toward our goal. Regardless, we will always try to make the action that best fits with our motivation. If we didn’t make choices that match our motivation, then we would indeed be acting randomly. If it’s descriptive, then how could he move sub-optimally? Perhaps I have you wrong here, but it seems to me that if it were descriptive then that definitely locks into place the moves he could make. If it were prescriptive, then he ‘ought’ to make some moves, but does not have to. Going back to your example, why you are an excellent player is because of your records (your ‘perfect’ playing). You would sacrifice that perfection the moment you played a sub-optimal move. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > FWIW, I’m not a creationist.. at least not in that sense. It just seems to me like the problem your running into is an assumption about what God’s goals in creating us is and then believe that manner in which humanity was created doesn’t fit that goal. I believe that, as part of that goal, God wanted us to learn to choose to do good and, as such, the manner in which humanity was created is consistent with that goal. > > There is, of course, another potential problem here in the assumption that creation is somehow done. In the manner that I think God created the universe, essentially setting it up to roll out and basically just tipping the first domino, exactly what is “creation”? Was it just the very first moment when things got turned on? In that case, we really weren’t directly created at all. Were we done being created the moment we became humans? Even there, you’d be hard-pressed to draw any meaningful line where one generation isn’t human and the next is. Or is creation an ongoing process where, in fact, we’re effectively still being created even now? We certainly aren’t at his goal yet, muchless whenever we may have been “created”. Yes, in my mind God’s goals _have to_ come into the same game as his descriptors. I’m not sure that God could _know_ what it is like to learn to choose between good and evil, which leads to the problem of how _we_ do. It seems to me that God, because of the constraints of perfection, has less free will then we do in this regard. As to creation being done - I am a proponent of the b theory of time and that probably marks the way I view “creation”. I’m not sure that a God on the A theory makes sense unless you are arguing that such a god has middle knowledge? > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > To be honest, I don’t really have a good answer for this that will solve this to your satisfaction, because I think it’s really one of those things where we’d have to peer into God’s mind to really know. It seems to me that you think that evil is avoidable, and perhaps it is, I don’t know, but I don’t think that means it is necessarily inconsistent with God’s motivation and, therefore, imperfect. Fair enough. As to evil being avoidable, I think that it is - but I’m not convinced of it. So while I argue one way, it isn’t necessarily how I feel about the matter (I typically feel less confident then I argue - an argument should be about the best defense one can muster - at the end of the day though, I’d concede that “I don’t know”). > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I think part of the problem here is a difference in perspective. I would agree that unnecessary evil probably violates the proposed properties of God, and we can come up with countless examples of starving children in Africa, and injured children in the war-torn middle East but, quite frankly, I don’t have any kind of perspective to those sorts of events to make any sort of meaningful judgment about them for each individual life. Those are very easy circumstances to look at as unnecessary evil. > > Instead, I have certainly seen a share of “evil” in my own life. But even now, in the vast majority of those cases of “evil”, I have ultimately drawn lessons from them. There are some from which I haven’t, but I can’t think of any of them that are not relatively recent and, thus, just haven’t happened yet. > > Now, you may say that they’re not really comparable, and you’d be absolutely right. But my path is my path and my path alone, just as is everyone else’s. It is up to use to evaluate the “evils” in our own lives. I’ve, in fact, found that there isn’t anything at all inherently “evil” about pain, grief, sadness, suffering, or any of these other things… but perhaps that’s getting into a completely different philosophical aspect of it all. Perhaps there is always a lesson to be learned from such evils. I don’t think so, but it’s certainly possible. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I think it does all come down to what “perfect” means, and perhaps this is where my other philosophical aspect comes into play that might make sense, at least for why it’s my perspective. I think part of the problem arises from a common idea that most people take for granted. > > Why is sadness “bad”? Is it because it’s unpleasant? There’s many things that are unpleasant to varying degrees that people would say are good. In fact, I don’t even think sadness is necessarily unplesant; surely, we’ve all had those situations where we’ve been sad and indulged in the feeling, saying and doing things that just made us sadder. Is it because it results in “bad” things? Sure it can, but some “good” emotions things can result in “bad” things too. And, in fact, sadness doesn’t have to result in bad things; for example, there’s countless works of art that were inspired by and/or invoke sadness, and yet they’re beautiful. In the end, I don’t believe sadness is “bad”, nor is it “good” either; what makes it good or bad is what comes out if it. > > In my philosophy, a similar argument can be made for pretty much any emotion, and many other “bad” things like suffering, loss, and violence, as well as for many “good” things too. The problem arises in generalizations that we see these sorts of things and try to put them in a box where one size fits all. Yes, you bring up a lot of good points. These things, in and of themselves, are not (at least obviously) evil or bad. I think that a case could be made that there is unnecessary suffering/pain in this world. I’m reminded of a debate with the Internet Infidel’s head guy (Lowder, I believe) where he brings up the example of pain and says that it can be very instructive. If you touch a hot stove, the pain you feel informs you that you should remove your hand from the stove. On the other hand, if you have the Ebola virus, the relentless suffering you experience as your innards liquefy serve no such utility. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Imagine for a moment a goal where one has a goal where he wants to enjoy himself, eating some delicious cake, relaxing, and watching a good movie would all be “good” choices to that end. Now imagine he has a goal where he wants to get in shape, those are now “bad” choices. To me, asking why “evil” has to exist would be like taking this example and asking why does cake taste so good if one can’t eat it when trying to lose weight. It’s conflating the two goals. To me it sounds like someone would have themselves a gold mine if they could somehow replace all the simple carbohydrates in that cake with healthy protein, vitamins, and omega 3’s… I understand your point, but I’m not sure it can be extended to all situations (such as the ebola example). > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I’m not saying that suffering necessarily makes one better, but rather that I think it’s possible that sometimes it is the shortest path to the goal. The idea of morality, to me, is that it’s our “best guess” at a method for choosing which options to take when traversing the statespace that is the universe. One with low morality will more often choose worse options than someone with higher morality. As our morality grows, we will become more likely to make better choices toward that ultimate goal. It’s a continuing iterative process. The other trouble with this theodicy is that it could create situations where pain/suffering is instructive and useful, but it can be prevented - but accordingly this theodicy would suggest it shouldn’t be presented. In other words, let’s say you have the ability to stop massive starvation. Surely this would be a great good. Hold on a second though, if suffering exists to better the soul or to inform the soul, then if you prevent the starvation you are essentially making those starving people’s **lives worse**. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > More or less, N/A on both things. Obviously, the first question depends one what heaven is. I see it as the dwelling place of God and, hopefully, eventually us, once we’ve learned what we’re here to learn. > > The second one, really, just doesn’t make sense within my beliefs, at least. That is, I believe “before” doesn’t make sense within that context, as time is a property of the the natural world, and is not a property of God. I believe he is a non-temporal being. It’d be akin to asking who the best football player was in 1850, when football hadn’t been invented yet. True, both questions rely on having beliefs about both places (events?). > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Fair questions, and I don’t really have good answers for you. Does learning even make sense for God? If he’s omniscient, is there, in fact, anything he can learn? I tend to believe, and I’m still iterating on this one, that his omniscience is actually more of an emergent property of him being a non-temporal being. That is, he knows everything, because he effectively can see everything at any time… even thought that doesn’t really make sense. I think that most philosophers would probably break knowledge down into a few categories. I can’t remember what they are, but basically, there’s factual knowledge, physical knowledge, and personal knowledge. It seems to me that God (omnimax, atemporal, etc) could somehow have the first one - that is, God could know all true facts. How God would have the second is a mystery to me. It is, essentially, muscle memory. So, for example, my body has knowledge of what it’s like to ride a bike. God, being immaterial, does not have this knowledge. A female could make the same argument, with regard to how hormones effect her (I bring up female in particular in case you want to posit Jesus as God). The third type of knowledge seems impossible for God to have. Essentially it’s I know what it’s like to be me and not someone else. This would include qualia I suppose - what it means for me to experience something as opposed to what it means for you to experience it. So, when you experience pain, you have an intimate knowledge of how that pain is **feeling to you**. If I were to experience the same pain stimuli, I might feel the pain more acutely (or less, or whatever), but our experiences would be different and unique to _us_. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > As an attempt at an analogy, imagine you’re taking an exam for a college course. If one student is taking it in a classroom, his knowledge on the material is limited to whatever he learned and studied on. Now imagine another student got the exact same exam, except he get to take it home, can use any resources he wants, and effectively has as much time as he wants. Now imagine the TA grading the exams is under the impression that both students took the exam in the classroom when grading it. Assuming the second student made good use of his resources and time, he ought to have gotten everything right, and from the perspective of the TA and the other student, he’ll appear to have mastered the material, but really, there wasn’t any way that he wouldn’t have gotten them right. This is how I view our perspective of God; being unconstrained by time, and having access to infinite resources, he inherently knows everything. I’m not sure I follow how this relates to ‘learning’ exactly. I think I get that you are attempting to take time out of the equation, but I’m not sure how the analogy is flowing. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Sure thing! Cool, it’s been fun. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/178 "2010-06-14T20:49:33Z")
> [@Nature\_s\_Call](#): > > First of all, **Blaster Master** I acknowledge and appreciate the tone of your response. Thanks, and the same with you and Meatros. It’s nice to have a religious toned discussion on the Dope that doesn’t devolve like I’ve seen so many others. > [@](#): > > I agree with you to an extent that the discussion of God’s existence can lead away from the OP’s concern whether God loves everyone. There is an overlap, though. Obviously if God doesn’t exist then God doesn’t love anyone. But more than that, evidence of God’s love has to be considered and often the refutations of God’s love directly or indirectly apply to the existence question. I try to keep the two separate in my replies in this thread. It’s very difficult as they are so entwined. Fair point; however, I would say in such a topic as this, I would generally say it’s fair to just take God (or perhaps a god) exists simply because, as you point out, it’s a pointless debate otherwise. Of course, it makes sense to discuss which God we’re talking about, so we can establish if his claimed properties are consistent. I do think they tie intricately together, I just think that this debate can be interesting by itself since, quite frankly, I’m not terribly interested in the other part since they never seem to go anywhere. > [@](#): > > In response to your last post: Somehow in these discussions the words “science” and “evidence” take on strange metaphysical attributes. It is often remarked “God cannot be detected by science therefore one cannot expect there to be evidence for God.” > > The point about the cement block was not intended to be “see here’s something science can detect, why isn’t God like a cement block.” My point was only about discerning the truth. I ask that you not focus on the cement - focus on the claim. If I tell you I made a brick fly up you do not believe me. If you tell me thoughts come to you from outside yourself, I do not believe you. There is an opportunity for each of us to dispell each others disbelief. How? The only word that comes to mind is “evidence” Not some spooky, legally sciencey concept. No, rather just describing what is it that convinced us. Okay, I think I see your point on this now, but I’m still not sure they’re really comparable. The thing is, with the brick example, one might be able to provide a scientific theory, photographic evidence, eye witness reports, etc. All of these things are observable and testable by science. In the case of experiencing God, AFAIK, there is no scientifically measurable evidence that can be provided that would be any different whether my account is complete accurate, completely false, or any state in between. Thus, in the case of the cement block, one has potential to provide evidence for, but there is also existing theoretical and experimental data that contradicts the situation. In the latter case, there is absolutely zero evidence for or against. Now, one can make arguments about Occam’s Razor or burden of evidence, and I think those are meaningful if the goal of the person providing the account of said experiences is using them as evidence for why another should or should not hold a similar belief. In this case, that isn’t my goal; in fact, I think anyone who uses their experiences to try to argue why someone else should believe in God will rightfully get no where. My experiences are only meaningful to me, just as the experiences of someone else are only meaningful to him. My goal here isn’t to try to convince you or anyone else that God exists because, as I’ve said, I believe that is a very personal journey. I’ve never been one to proselytize and, instead, prefer to either share my thoughts and beliefs when relevant (as they are in discussion) or when specifically asked. In this case, I’m simply interested in discussing the ideas in general because I feel it helps my understanding if I can successfully explain and/or defend those ideas meaningfully. I guess the only thing I’m interested in dispelling is the idea that God and loving everyone is possible. > [@](#): > > I want to focus on the meditation point. I will not argue that meditation is a dumb or worthless exercise. My only concern is whether it is a means to allow God Himself to speak to us. Let’s take, for the sake of argument, that both you and I were born _tabula rasa_ and were raised in more or less the same culture. We each see things fall and develop an internal working model for gravity. We each see how humans behave and treat each other and develop a sense of how to treat others and when to trust/mistrust others. But we diverge on the question of God’s love. I say “there is no God” You say “he helps me through difficult situations if I listen carefully for him.” > > I hope I set up this argument in such a way to set aside for a moment the “explain red to the blind” (which I’ll come back to). I assume that you and I are equally equipped of whatever sensory apparatus informs you when God is speaking and not your own thoughts. > > With all of those givens and preambles, do you have a reasonable explanation why I have not had the experience of God’s voice that you have had? Let’s assume I have tried meditation to the same degree and frequency you have. Why is God not speaking to me too? This is actually a very good question, and I’m not really sure how good my answer is, but I’ll give it a shot, especially since it’s something I think I mostly settled, at least for me, relatively recently. I think I will have to paint a big picture first though. The best analogy that I can come up with is one with which you’re probably familiar, which is the blind men and the elephant, one touches the leg and things it’s a tree, another touches the trunk and thinks it’s a vine, yet another touches the tail and thinks it’s a snake. The point is, God is much larger than we’re able to perceive, and our perceptions are distorted not just by his infinity projected onto our finite sense, but further distorted by cultural, experience, and all kinds of other things. As such, I think everyone’s perception of God will, in all likelihood, be different, sometimes very much so. So, to me, it’s really not very surprising that there’s so many differing views on God. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if we could conceive the true nature of God, that pretty much any honest pursuit of God will hold at least some truth to it. So, for me, and why I have some more specific beliefs, like Christianity specifically, is that my particular beliefs are most consistent with how I’ve perceived God, fully acknowledging that my perception is only a projection and is distorted by my culture, environment, expectations, and all that. Of course, I think I’m right, but based on that, it’s probably a foregone conclusion that I’m wrong about a lot of things, even things that seem absolutely consistent with my perception of God. And, thus, for you, you’re seeing the same thing, but a somewhat different projection and potentially very different set of distortions. So, I can only guess on why you perceive that he isn’t speaking to you. Perhaps he is speaking to you, you’ve received the message, and attributed the source to something else. I suspect that this is the likeliest case, where you’ve said you’ve had similar experiences and attributed it to yourself. And I think that’s fine, because you learned whatever lesson you needed to learn, God getting “credit” for it isn’t really meaningful. Or perhaps he is speaking to you and you’ve misread it, rejected it, or out-right didn’t receive it. This latter case happens to me sometimes, and it may seem like he’s doing a poor job, but sometimes I think that’s part of the lesson. For instance, I specifically remember one difficult lesson for me where I was missing or misinterpretting parts of it for a while, but after I finally learned it, I was also able to go back and see how I had the opportunities to learn in subtler and, sometimes, less painful ways, and so, in the future, I could be more observant and learn then more quickly so, in fact, it was a lesson in and of itself. In either case, whether one believes in God or not, I think it’s still a meaningful way to approach life, because we each always have a lesson to learn and sometimes get easier ways to learn it where, if we don’t, we get a more obvious way, and if we pay attention to the lessons, we can go through life easier. I hope that perspective makes sense. > [@](#): > > Just a brief comment on the “explain red to the blind” If I was blind, you could very well explain that there is a notion of colour, the mechansim that you have that I lack which allows you to discern colours. You can set up a demonstration: e.g. two surfaces one glowing red hot, the other not. You and I both stand far enough away that neither can feel the heat. But you can with 100% accuracy tell when the hot surface is on the left or the right, and I can at best hope only for 50%. I will be convinced thereby that you have an ability that I do not, and that ability is consistent with your explanation thereof. This isn’t spooky “sciencey-evidencey” mystery. This is just common rational sense (which is why science works). Indeed, if your ability to see red suddenly disappeared because science got too close, I would doubt your ability to see red at all. My point with the “red to the blind” was an attempt at an analogy of explaining one sense in another. That is, I can explain what red looks like with other visual cues, but if I result to comparing other senses, those comparisons are only meaningful if someone else has also seen red. It’s not like I can just say it’s hot, fast, etc. and expect that a blind person will somehow visualize the actual color, I can’t have any reasonable expectation that he’ll visualize anything (being blind), much less that specific color. That is, I just don’t think there’s any meaningful way to explain or test something that is purely experiental. It’s one thing to say something is red, but if two people tried to explain what red looked like, how similar would their descriptions be? If someone described it in a way that seemed odd in comparison to everyone else, like maybe saying red is soothing, is their experience somehow less valid because it doesn’t jive with yours? How will he go about explaining to you how and why his experience is different? ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/179 "2010-06-14T20:53:24Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Uhhh, what you’ve described isn’t really a game of dominoes… I know, and I know how the actual game is played, but frankly, I know more people that “play” it the way I described than by the actual rules. What else would you call it? I’m happy to use another term for it if you have a better one. Does my usage detract from my analogy? ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590/180 "2010-06-14T22:18:31Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I can understand that idea - it was one of the reasons I excepted evolutionary theory as a Christian. > > The problem with this view is that it sets the stage - there’s very little wiggle room for free will (if there is any). It also makes me wonder why the dominoes were set up in this way as opposed to another way. The idea of free will still works fine. For instance, one of my favorite mathematical concepts to play around with is randomness, but even still, with some basic constraints, it’s not terribly difficult to achieve emergent behavior even with random input. So, considering that all previously made decisions are constraints on future decisions, not to mention whatever the initial state and rules of the universe were, it doesn’t seem terribly difficult for me to see that an infinite being could achieve emergent behavior on a much larger scale. The latter part is an interesting question though, and leads right into why I’m so interested in understanding God’s motivation. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure that I’m convinced by the naturalizing of miracles. It seems to me that if you strip the miracles out of the Bible, then you have a tough footing for claiming divine ownership. At the same time, it seems unnecessary if it’s all set up for accuracy in prophecies - it seems too ‘rules driven’, to confining, to have God set up the universe so that the natural coincides with the miraculous. That’s not to say it’s impossible or wrong or anything - btw. It’s not just about aligning prophecies, it leads to all sorts of things. One of the philosophies by which I’ve lived for some time now is that there’s no such thing as coincidences. As, and I hate to bring up an Einstein quote after the earlier part of the thread, but he said it best when he said that coincidences are God’s way of remaining anonymous. Sure, it could just be a statistical anomaly, or confirmation bias, but what they could be if they’re not God isn’t the point. How is it ‘rules driven’ if I’m working on a particular lesson and events in my life transpire in such a way as to help me learn it? > [@](#): > > The chaos is in a freely chosen action - if the choice isn’t coming from history, biology, or chemical configurations, then what is the choice being based on? I don’t have a good answer for this one. I do believe, as I’ve stated previously, that there is something more to us. Exactly what it is, what it does and doesn’t do, isn’t something I have an answer for because it’s intrinsically a part of what we are and that differentiation has never really served any really meaningful purpose in my own ponderings. I do think things like history and biological serve as heavy weights on alternatives and as distortions on perceptions which can also affect reasoning. In either case, I don’t believe it is a purely physical process. Obviously, I don’t expect you to believe that, only that I can completely understand and, in fact, agree that without that, then yes, free will doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. > [@](#): > > If it’s descriptive, then how could he move sub-optimally? Perhaps I have you wrong here, but it seems to me that if it were descriptive then that definitely locks into place the moves he could make. If it were prescriptive, then he ‘ought’ to make some moves, but does not have to. > > Going back to your example, why you are an excellent player is because of your records (your ‘perfect’ playing). You would sacrifice that perfection the moment you played a sub-optimal move. I might have used the terms wrongly. My point was just in trying to say that his perfection is a description of his behavior, not a requirement upon them. And this is why my own “perfect playing” is relevant, I’m only perfect as long as I continue to choose optimal moves, and while I have the choice to make suboptimal moves, considering it directly contradicts my motivation, yes I’d no longer be perfect either, but now I’m making a choice I don’t want to make… sure I CAN, but why would I? By the same logic, God has a particular motivation or set of motivations, why would he make a decision that he is absolutely certain will contradict his motivations? > [@](#): > > Yes, in my mind God’s goals _have to_ come into the same game as his descriptors. I’m not sure that God could _know_ what it is like to learn to choose between good and evil, which leads to the problem of how _we_ do. It seems to me that God, because of the constraints of perfection, has less free will then we do in this regard. I don’t agree with the idea that he’s constrained by perfection, it is just the “natural” consequence of being omniscient and omnipotent. He’ll always know which action will best align with his motivations, so why would he choose anything else? He’d either do something contrary to his motivations, which means he has different motivations than he does, which makes no sense, or he’s choosing to do something that is sub-optimal toward those motivations, which, again, undermines his motivations. I’m not really seeing how that’s any different from us, the only difference is we can only guess at what action best fits our motivations. > [@](#): > > As to creation being done - I am a proponent of the b theory of time and that probably marks the way I view “creation”. I’m not sure that a God on the A theory makes sense unless you are arguing that such a god has middle knowledge? TBH, I’m not read on the philosophy of time. From a quick read, it looks like b-series is more consistent with my view of how God perceives our reality. However, I think that, as temporal beings, we perceive our experience as an a-series, regardless of whether that is the reality of the matter or not. > [@](#): > > Fair enough. As to evil being avoidable, I think that it is - but I’m not convinced of it. So while I argue one way, it isn’t necessarily how I feel about the matter (I typically feel less confident then I argue - an argument should be about the best defense one can muster - at the end of the day though, I’d concede that “I don’t know”). > > Perhaps there is always a lesson to be learned from such evils. I don’t think so, but it’s certainly possible. > > Yes, you bring up a lot of good points. These things, in and of themselves, are not (at least obviously) evil or bad. I think that a case could be made that there is unnecessary suffering/pain in this world. > > I’m reminded of a debate with the Internet Infidel’s head guy (Lowder, I believe) where he brings up the example of pain and says that it can be very instructive. If you touch a hot stove, the pain you feel informs you that you should remove your hand from the stove. On the other hand, if you have the Ebola virus, the relentless suffering you experience as your innards liquefy serve no such utility. > > To me it sounds like someone would have themselves a gold mine if they could somehow replace all the simple carbohydrates in that cake with healthy protein, vitamins, and omega 3’s… > > I understand your point, but I’m not sure it can be extended to all situations (such as the ebola example). This may just be a part where we’ll have to agree to disagree. I the problem is, these sorts of situations are never isolated, and often various lessons are there to be learned by many different people connected to the situation. In fact, in many ways, lessons need to be learned by “humanity” and not necessarily be a certain set of individuals. Unforunately, these sorts of things get into the nature of the soul and all that, and I’ve only touched on that in my ponderings, so I’m no where near prepared to really support meaningfully. I mean, it’s easy to construct isolated examples, but I’m not really sure how illustrative they are so, like everyone else, I’m forced to examples from my own experiences, and while I don’t really have anything that compares to having my organs liquefy, I do have some experiences that seem needlessly painful, at the time, and in some cases years afterward, but later I see the lessons I learned and it’s difficult to imagine how I could have learned them “better”. > [@](#): > > The other trouble with this theodicy is that it could create situations where pain/suffering is instructive and useful, but it can be prevented - but accordingly this theodicy would suggest it shouldn’t be presented. > > In other words, let’s say you have the ability to stop massive starvation. Surely this would be a great good. Hold on a second though, if suffering exists to better the soul or to inform the soul, then if you prevent the starvation you are essentially making those starving people’s **lives worse**. I can’t agree here. There “can” be lessons to be learned from suffering, but that doesn’t mean that lessons have to be learned that way. In is our obligation to act in accordance with what we believe to be true. Yes, while some people are starving, they may be learning something, but that doesn’t also mean that one who wants to end the starvation shouldn’t. Our lives interweave in such complicated ways, and it could very well be that the way the dominoes were laid out, the very way that starvation is supposed to end is by my hands. It isn’t my job to try to determine what God’s big plan is for everyone and everything. Who am I to decide that starving people need to learn a lesson or not? It is not my place to pass that sort of judgment on other people, I can only do what I believe is right. > [@](#): > > I think that most philosophers would probably break knowledge down into a few categories. I can’t remember what they are, but basically, there’s factual knowledge, physical knowledge, and personal knowledge. > > It seems to me that God (omnimax, atemporal, etc) could somehow have the first one - that is, God could know all true facts. > > How God would have the second is a mystery to me. It is, essentially, muscle memory. So, for example, my body has knowledge of what it’s like to ride a bike. God, being immaterial, does not have this knowledge. A female could make the same argument, with regard to how hormones effect her (I bring up female in particular in case you want to posit Jesus as God). > > The third type of knowledge seems impossible for God to have. Essentially it’s I know what it’s like to be me and not someone else. This would include qualia I suppose - what it means for me to experience something as opposed to what it means for you to experience it. So, when you experience pain, you have an intimate knowledge of how that pain is **feeling to you**. If I were to experience the same pain stimuli, I might feel the pain more acutely (or less, or whatever), but our experiences would be different and unique to _us_. I’m not sure that those are meaningful distinctions for God, but I’ll follow along for a moment. Following your female example, let’s say we have a technology that could copy a particular memory or set of memories from one brain to another, and we were to copy the memories of a uniquely female experience to a man, could that man then be said to have physical knowledge of that experience and personal knowledge of that particular woman? If God is able to have all factual knowledge, and thus know exactly how such memories are storied, could he not effectively achieve the same thing? This is getting into the structure of souls, of which I am self-admittedly quite shakey on right now, but I’ve heard it put forth by some that, in fact, we are in some way God’s way of actually experiencing and learning these things. Maybe this is how he becomes/is omniscient, by learning the totality of all possible experiences and being non-temporal, he’s “always” had them. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure I follow how this relates to ‘learning’ exactly. I think I get that you are attempting to take time out of the equation, but I’m not sure how the analogy is flowing. This sort of ties into the above. I wasn’t trying to illustrate that I think omniscience sort of natrually follows from being omnipotent and non-temporal. If one has access to infinite resources and time, then he inherently knows everything. That is, if there ever were a point he didn’t know something he needed to know, he could go figure it out, and by virtue of being non-temporal he has, from our perspective, always known it. Eh, trying to work with non-temporal phenomena makes my head spin… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-god-love-everyone/542590.md?page=10)