A Good God Exists
Debate Rounds (3)
Premise 1: Deceit is not a Good.
Premise 2: God deceives at least one person.
God: A Being with, at least, these three characteristics: Omniscience, Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence (All-Good).
Omnibenevolence (All-Good): The most beneficial outcome for all things at all times.
Omnipotence: Able to do all things (excepting those things that are not of it's nature, and logically incoherent)
Omniscience: Having perfect knowledge of all actions and outcomes.
1. If God is All-Good, he does All-Good.
2. God does not reveal itself to all honest seekers (see argument from divine hiddenness)*, and thus acts deceitfully.
4. Therefore, God, if it exists, is not All-Good.
Therefore, even if the Argument from divine hiddenness fails to prove a God does not exist, it certainly proves a Good God does not exist with my previous argument.
1. Let an intention refer to a mental state of an agent with the following characteristics:
1.a An intentional state is "directed at or about objects in the world" (Searle**, 48)
1.b An intentional state consists of "a representative content in a psychological model" (Searle, 48). In other words, an intention is a certain mental depiction representing a desired state of the external world.
1.c "such Intentional states as these can be said to be satisfied or not satisfied depending on whether the representative content actually matches or represents anything in reality" (Searle, 48)
1.d Intentions have "conditions of satisfaction" that refer to the state of affairs under which an intention would be satisfied (Searle, 48)
1.e Conditions of satisfaction can only be fulfilled through agency if the agent has the necessary "background capacities" which make this possible (Searle)
Based on theory of intentionality from Searle, in order to be Good one can intend to be good, but never have Good obtain. However, this does not apply to a God which can manifest all desires.
In order, then, to act in a way that is not Good, God must intend to reveal itself to some but not others based on some level of deception or deceit. It must act in way that 1) limits it's ability to reveal itself, and/or 2) limits its knowledge of how to reveal itself to each individual who honestly seeks God.
A Good God, while intending everyone to know of it's existence, would have to limit the use of it's omniscience or omnipotence in order to keep that knowledge from obtaining. This cannot come from a Good intention, since deceit is not a Good.
Multiple concepts of God:
There are many versions of God, and many, if not most, of these version are claimed to be some version of a revelation, or even deduced via logic and reason.
However, not all people receive the same revelation and Good, Honest people disagree on which God exists.
If a God exists, it is clear it is not conveying the knowledge of its existence fairly.
Evidence shows God is either not omnipotent: It is not alerting all of us to it's existence, or, omniscient: does not know how to teach us all of it's existence, or Omnibenevolent: Cares to make us aware of it's existence.
Nazi's at Anne's House:
One of the common rebuttals is that maybe God has a reason to deceive, for a greater Good. But this is not an argument for an All-Good God.
An All-Good God would not lie to the Nazi's at Anne Franks door, but also not allow them to take her. An All-Good God would tell the truth AND avoid any negative consequences.
(If we were omnipotent, we would say "Sure, she's upstairs. Try to take her. Make my day.")
Appealing to some future Good as a reason to do something Non-Good is Theological Utilitarianism, and still means God would have to act in a non-Good way. This is impossible if something is defined as Omnibenevolent.
My opponent will have to show that there is no intention for a Being that is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent to practice deceit, or do one act that is in contradiction to it's nature.
Particularly, my opponent will have to show that all actions by God are All-Good all the time, while, at the same time, explaining Divine Hiddeness and other forms of deceit in the evidence of God.
Therefore, I close my opening against the proposition that a Good God exists.
*The argument from Divine Hiddeness is as follows:
(1) Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God is also (iii) in a position to participate in such relationship (able to do so just by trying).
(2) Necessarily, one is at a time in a position to participate in meaningful conscious relationship with God only if at that time one believes that God exists.
(3) Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God also (iii) believes that God exists.
(4) There are (and often have been) people who are (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God without also (iii) believing that God exists.
(5) God does not exist.
**Searle, John R. "The Intentionality of Intention and Act." Cognitive Science 4, 47-70 (1980)
Nothing in my argument precludes God from existing and challenging us, but to do so, if God reveals itself to some and not to others, it is acting with deceit - the intention to hide or confuse.
A God can challenge us, test us, and do all the things theists want that God to do, but unless it acts completely good all the time, it can't be considered All-Good.
To be completely Good means you don't act bad some times, even with good intentions.
The extreme example would be Stalin, who believed he was acting with the best intentions. Do we say he was All-Good is it turns out he was right all along?
Pro, by accepting this argument, must argue for a Good God. Our growth has nothing to do with god's character. It's a non sequitur.
God, choosing to create a world in which suffering exists, already chose a less-than-Good path. Whether or not a greater good can come from it does not turn less-than-Good actions into good ones. Certainly not for an omnipotent being.
Pro confuses the issue by asserting, without merit, that our growth somehow ameliorates God's less-than-Good actions. For example, God could have created us like God: perfect with no reason for improvement.
If growth is a greater Good, then God is not perfect. If Pro wants to argue for the supremacy of growth, then Pro would be arguing against a perfect being.
My points stand.
aider forfeited this round.
Since Pro has declined to argue this round, I can only presume he is either bowing out, or, preparing to reassert his original objetion.
Let me clarify, then, the point he may have been making.
The way I interpret this repsonse is that God gives us challenges to help us grow. If he never gave us challeneges, we wouldn't be perfected (or move towards perfection, since we are unable to be perfect according to most theologians).
First, the idea of God as a parent is rather loathesome. As a parent, I understand letting my child risk a scraped knee in order to learn how to ride a bike (which, let's face it, isn't really perfecting us...)
But, to think I would sit silently while my child was raped and murdered would make me the sickest, most despicable parent in the history of the world - and I'm not omnipotent! I would try, knowing I might fail. God, if he exists, watches silently, as women are raped all over the world, while children starve to death (every 5 seconds), or are murdered. God watched while 12 million people were killed in Germany, 100 million in Russia and tens of millions in China.
And, while people die of painful diseases, tsunami's, and let's say that ALL of those dead go onto Heaven.
What of the families they leave behind? What of the baby that is spared for a few days, trapped under the rubble that her mother died in during an Earthquake - unknown until we discover her weeks later?
What of the untold suffering?
The Problem of Evil, while not a solid argument against God, is clearly a solid argument against a Good God in the sense that if that God is Good, then it MUST only commit Good Acts.
Pro is saying that all this lack of action in the face of such misery and the utter hiddeness is a Good Act by an All-Good Being.
If a Superhero was like this, we wouldn't call him a Good Guy, he'd be Evil - or, at least, ineffectual, or non-good.
We can't simply change our definition when we assert that it's for some unknown purpose.
So, the claim that God must have this system in order to make things better is spurious. After all, if I can't know what the possible Good might be, then Pro can't say what the possible Bad might be. Perhaps God is Evil?
If Pro wants to continue this argument, he is still saying that God commits non-Good acts to do a greater Good (Theological Utilitarianism), which is ceding the argument.
Con stands unrefuted.
1. The bible is false, and
2. God is out to destroy the world he created.
If so, then humankind would not be alive and so advanced.(Furthermore, if God is against us, who is stopping him destroying the whole world?)If God is evil, then why are there Christians everywhere, and people proving God is kind?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.