Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God, Free Will, and Omnibenevolence

LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 2:06:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There have recently been some arguments on whether or not God can be omnibenevolent and still allow free will. This is slightly different from that.

What I am wondering is whether or not, assuming omnibenevolence, God is inherently good. I ask this, because, if God is omnibenevolent, then it seems he has no choice but to act in a benevolent manner. This comes about because omnibenevolence is oft treated as if it were an inherent part of what makes God, as opposed to a choice he made. If this is true, then God does not in fact have free will, because he is forced into being benevolent. If he lacks this moral autonomy, then he cannot be declared to be inherently good or moral, because he lacks moral autonomy. If someone performs an action which is good, we would not declare them to be a good or moral person if they were forced to perform that action. We would simply declare the action itself to be good.
If God, on the other hand, is not omnibenevolent, then it is of his own voilition that he has chosen to act in a good and moral manner, and thus he does have moral autonomy. However, because he has chosen to be good, he cannot be declared to be an inherently good being.
So, it seems to me that God cannot be an inherently good being, because if morality is an inherent part of himself, then he lacks the autonomy which is required for him to be judged as good or not good, and if morality is not, then he is obviously not inherently good or moral.

Opinions?
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 2:43:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The error in such reasoning is making morality an entity that exists outside the character of God. As if morality is something that was neither created by nor subject to God. You have conflated God and His creatures, as if they are morally analogous. Is it possible that God and His creatures are not morally analogous? If morality is defined by the very nature of God – insofar as morality is not a standard by which God Himself is judged, but rather God is the metric by which morality is known. Just as a scale exists outside of its own measurements, insomuch as it cannot weigh itself, so it is possible that God exists as not something to BE measured, but as the very object by which we measure. This understanding of God more appropriately reflects the understanding of the God in question, and therefore shows no such contradiction.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 4:22:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 2:43:24 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
The error in such reasoning is making morality an entity that exists outside the character of God. As if morality is something that was neither created by nor subject to God. You have conflated God and His creatures, as if they are morally analogous. Is it possible that God and His creatures are not morally analogous? If morality is defined by the very nature of God – insofar as morality is not a standard by which God Himself is judged, but rather God is the metric by which morality is known. Just as a scale exists outside of its own measurements, insomuch as it cannot weigh itself, so it is possible that God exists as not something to BE measured, but as the very object by which we measure. This understanding of God more appropriately reflects the understanding of the God in question, and therefore shows no such contradiction.

I fail to see the contradiction, because what I am saying is simply that moral autonomy is necessary to judge a being moral. If we measure morality through God, then when ones actions are in accordance with God's will or action one is being moral. However, because of the distinction between acting moral, and being judged to be moral, every action God takes may be judged to be moral, and yet he still would not be a moral being, if he lacks moral autonomy.

A scale exists outside of its own measurements yes, but I am examining essence, not action. The scale of God weighs the morality of action, not of being, or so it seems to me.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 4:45:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I fail to see the contradiction

Were you not trying to show a contradiction between omnibenevolence and free will?

because what I am saying is simply that moral autonomy is necessary to judge a being moral

And I am saying that there is a relevant difference between beings and God. You do not JUDGE God as moral, inasmuch as you cannot place a scale upon itself. God is omnibenevolent because goodness is defined by His essence.

However, because of the distinction between acting moral, and being judged to be moral, every action God takes may be judged to be moral, and yet he still would not be a moral being, if he lacks moral autonomy.

By what binding and transcendental moral standard - that is apparently objective and self-existent - are you appealing to? By assuming you can judge God by a moral standard, you are assuming a moral standard that is separate God. What is it?

but I am examining essence

By first assuming that God's actions are morally equivalent to mans. Since God can do ANYTHING, and it can be moral by virtue of God doing it, that means he can freely do whatever in the world he pleases while still remaining omnibenevolent. The error is in making God and man moral equivalents – no theist I know of believes what your argument requires that they believe.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 5:48:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 4:45:13 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
I fail to see the contradiction

Were you not trying to show a contradiction between omnibenevolence and free will?
I was talking about the argument you are making. I can see how that could be confusing.

because what I am saying is simply that moral autonomy is necessary to judge a being moral

And I am saying that there is a relevant difference between beings and God. You do not JUDGE God as moral, inasmuch as you cannot place a scale upon itself. God is omnibenevolent because goodness is defined by His essence.

Which is exactly what I am talking about. If one of his essential traits is goodness, then he lacks a choice as to be good or not, and cannot be defined as inherently good, simply forcibly good.

However, because of the distinction between acting moral, and being judged to be moral, every action God takes may be judged to be moral, and yet he still would not be a moral being, if he lacks moral autonomy.

By what binding and transcendental moral standard - that is apparently objective and self-existent - are you appealing to? By assuming you can judge God by a moral standard, you are assuming a moral standard that is separate God. What is it?

I am not using any moral standard. Even if we use God as the standard for morality, what we use him as a standard for the morality of actions, not of persons. The morality of persons is defined by their actions, but only when those actions are the result of autonomous decision-making. When they are not, the person cannot be judged to be moral or immoral.

but I am examining essence

By first assuming that God's actions are morally equivalent to mans. Since God can do ANYTHING, and it can be moral by virtue of God doing it, that means he can freely do whatever in the world he pleases while still remaining omnibenevolent. The error is in making God and man moral equivalents – no theist I know of believes what your argument requires that they believe.

While any action God takes may be moral, this does not show he is inherently moral. Actions show whether or not he is moral, but they cannot do so if he is forced into being moral.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 4:19:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is the CENTRE of all things: Autonomy IS evil: the ability to do evil is evil.
God is, of course, 'restricted' by His UTTER Holiness.. though it is not restriction at all: but REAL freedom.
The curse, or fall, of mankind is man choosing free-will.. choosing autonomy.
Christianity is all about relinquishing that cursed autonomy.. day by day.
The Cross.. the Cross.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 9:24:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 4:19:51 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
This is the CENTRE of all things: Autonomy IS evil: the ability to do evil is evil.
God is, of course, 'restricted' by His UTTER Holiness.. though it is not restriction at all: but REAL freedom.
The curse, or fall, of mankind is man choosing free-will.. choosing autonomy.
Christianity is all about relinquishing that cursed autonomy.. day by day.

Rephrased:

Free will = evil.
Restriction = real freedom.
Sin = choosing to choose.
Christianity = choosing to not choose.

????
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 9:30:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 2:43:24 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
The error in such reasoning is making morality an entity that exists outside the character of God. As if morality is something that was neither created by nor subject to God. You have conflated God and His creatures, as if they are morally analogous. Is it possible that God and His creatures are not morally analogous? If morality is defined by the very nature of God – insofar as morality is not a standard by which God Himself is judged, but rather God is the metric by which morality is known. Just as a scale exists outside of its own measurements, insomuch as it cannot weigh itself, so it is possible that God exists as not something to BE measured, but as the very object by which we measure. This understanding of God more appropriately reflects the understanding of the God in question, and therefore shows no such contradiction.

You seem to be saying that God defines what is moral -- which means it is impossible for God NOT to be omnibenevolent. If God dictates all morality, then it is not truly morality and God is not omnibenevolent. Morality dictated by a being, even a supernatural and all-powerful being, is still subjective. What gives God the right to decide what is good?

So either God is not omnibenevolent, or omnibenevolence has no meaning.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 6:56:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 9:24:35 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/12/2009 4:19:51 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
This is the CENTRE of all things: Autonomy IS evil: the ability to do evil is evil.
God is, of course, 'restricted' by His UTTER Holiness.. though it is not restriction at all: but REAL freedom.
The curse, or fall, of mankind is man choosing free-will.. choosing autonomy.
Christianity is all about relinquishing that cursed autonomy.. day by day.

Rephrased:

Free will = evil.
Restriction = real freedom.
Sin = choosing to choose.
Christianity = choosing to not choose.

????

The above is not SO far off.

How many choices do (good) parents give their children?
Limited or unlimited?
We are back to A and nonA.
Those are the choices.
At the moment you believe you are rejecting God.. but you are immersed in His blessings.. (oxygen, sky, nature, friends, family, food etc etc etc etc)
Hell is getting what you really want: YOUR will be done.
The Cross.. the Cross.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 7:27:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 7:05:23 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Datc, are you saying we do or don't have free will?

We have absolute free will.
There is NOTHING to stop me walking out of my house and killing someone.
I would, more than likely, have to pay the consequences, but I am utterly free to do whatever vile thing I can imagine.
I can also choose NOT to.
What's your point panda-face?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 8:40:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Just as a scale exists outside of its own measurements, insomuch as it cannot weigh itself, so it is possible that God exists as not something to BE measured, but as the very object by which we measure. This understanding of God more appropriately reflects the understanding of the God in question, and therefore shows no such contradiction. -- InquireTruth

A scale cannot weigh itself, but a scale can still be weighed. Similarly, I cannot see myself, but others can see me. I can see myself if I look in a mirror, so why can't God's image be mirrored with descriptions such as omnipotent if that's what He claims to be in the first place? When judged upon using the definitions that He claims to be (via the Bible and his followers), shouldn't he be able to live up to those standards? Saying "He can't be judged" seems like sort of a cop out.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 8:44:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 7:27:25 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/13/2009 7:05:23 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Datc, are you saying we do or don't have free will?

We have absolute free will.
There is NOTHING to stop me walking out of my house and killing someone.
I would, more than likely, have to pay the consequences, but I am utterly free to do whatever vile thing I can imagine.
I can also choose NOT to.
What's your point panda-face?

Silly DAT.

If you don't go out of your house and kill someone, it could be for a plethora of reasons (including, but not limited to): you don't want to suffer the consequences; your religious beliefs say that it's immoral; etc. However all of these reasons for your "choice" have already been determined and you had no choice over them. If you don't want to suffer the consequences, it's because you know what those consequences entail (based on previous people who have acted in such a manner). If you believe it is immoral, it's based on the teachings of the religion which you have "chosen" (which also happened for a reason, i.e. you were born into it, someone persuaded you to follow it, etc.). The point is that every single choice that we make is based on something that happened in the past, and when you trace that reasoning back, it becomes apparent that we've had no real choice as past actions determine our present choices. This is a very short explanation of why we have no free will.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 9:45:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
If your response is going to be "We choose to utilize past experiences to make present choices," save your breath... er, typing. We only "choose" that because our brains tell us too, because they are wired for knowledge, because our parents had sex with each other and their genetic material passed on to make us, etc... all of which we had no choice over. And so on and so forth.
President of DDO
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 5:00:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Which is exactly what I am talking about. If one of his essential traits is goodness, then he lacks a choice as to be good or not, and cannot be defined as inherently good, simply forcibly good.

Inasmuch as a human is forced to be human. Goodness as nature is not forced, forced implies that it comes from a source outside of the thing in question.

I am not using any moral standard. Even if we use God as the standard for morality, what we use him as a standard for the morality of actions, not of persons.

You've only shifted. If God is not the standard for the morality of persons, then by what binding and transcendental moral standard - that is apparently objective and self-existent - are you appealing to?

The morality of persons is defined by their actions, but only when those actions are the result of autonomous decision-making.

Ipse-dixit. Prove it. Moreover, you are conflating God and man. We judge the morality of PERSONS. What makes you so certain that we judge the morality of God just the same.

While any action God takes may be moral, this does not show he is inherently moral.

Why? And by what standard is this judged?

Actions show whether or not he is moral, but they cannot do so if he is forced into being moral.

What exactly is forcing God?

You seem to be saying that God defines what is moral -- which means it is impossible for God NOT to be omnibenevolent.

Precisely

If God dictates all morality, then it is not truly morality and God is not omnibenevolent.
That literally makes no sense. By placing "truly" before morality you've only suggested that there is such thing as true and nontrue morality.

Morality dictated by a being, even a supernatural and all-powerful being, is still subjective.

Subject to God, certainly (everything is subject to God). It is objective, however, by definition – insofar as it exists independent of human apprehension.

What gives God the right to decide what is good?

You use the word right as if it has some sort of actual meaning. Independent of the God you reject, rights are merely fantastic remnants of ancient indoctrination. What gives the game designer the right to disallow cheat codes…? He is the flippin' game designer, he can do whatever the huckleberry he wants – he controls the variables! His world, His rules.

A scale cannot weigh itself, but a scale can still be weighed.

Sure, you got the other scale? You've poked at the analogy, not the point. The point is that God is not bound by the measurements he produces.

When judged upon using the definitions that He claims to be

Whatever he does is right and good, according to the definitions ascribed to God via the Bible. You are suggesting that we judge God using a metric that he is, according to the Bible, neither bound by nor subject to. He, as the analogy states, exists outside of his own measurements.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 5:36:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 8:35:10 AM, theLwerd wrote:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE WiLL.

There's no such thing as free will, until you break your conditioning.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Achidnagar
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 7:36:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
God's properties result from his actions and nature, not the other way around. God doesn't do good because he's omnibenevolent. He repeatedly chooses to do good, and that is what makes him omnibenevolent.

Of course, this brings up the very issue that theLwerd has raised. Does God in fact a slave to his nature, without free will? I don't know. And if you believe in God, that is sometimes acceptable.
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 10:26:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 5:00:43 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
Actions show whether or not he is moral, but they cannot do so if he is forced into being moral.

What exactly is forcing God?

You seem to be saying that God defines what is moral -- which means it is impossible for God NOT to be omnibenevolent.

Precisely

This seems to be a contradiction. If you concede that God can only act benevolently, then you concede that he is not morally autonomous. He can have moral agency (thanks to Skeptic for explaining the difference in his debate, but he can't be free-willed.
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 10:26:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Saying something is not a choice because one of the choices has consequences is what is silly Lwerd.
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 10:43:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This seems to be a contradiction.

Want to write it out? It is irrelevant whether something seems contradictory if it is not ACTUALLY contradictory.

If you concede that God can only act benevolently

Inasmuch as we can only act humanly. Benevolence is part of God's nature.

then you concede that he is not morally autonomous.

You are placing morality outside the character of God, as if it was something that is not subject to him.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 2:37:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 10:43:04 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
This seems to be a contradiction.

Want to write it out? It is irrelevant whether something seems contradictory if it is not ACTUALLY contradictory.

The contradiction is the lack of moral autonomy, while forced benevolence exists.

If you concede that God can only act benevolently

Inasmuch as we can only act humanly. Benevolence is part of God's nature.

Which is a concession of the point that God is a slave to his nature.

then you concede that he is not morally autonomous.

You are placing morality outside the character of God, as if it was something that is not subject to him.

Except moral autonomy has nothing to do with where moral authority is placed. It simply refers to the ability to choose to act morally, as opposed to being forced to act morally. If God is forced to be moral by his very nature, then we cannot declare his nature to be moral because he has no control over his own actions.
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 3:09:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 10:43:04 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
This seems to be a contradiction.

Want to write it out? It is irrelevant whether something seems contradictory if it is not ACTUALLY contradictory.

At 8/13/2009 5:00:43 PM, You wrote:
Inasmuch as a human is forced to be human. Goodness as nature is not forced, forced implies that it comes from a source outside of the thing in question.

Then:

You seem to be saying that God defines what is moral -- which means it is impossible for God NOT to be omnibenevolent.

Precisely


You concede that it is impossible for god to be immoral, meaning he is forced to be moral. Forced being "Imposed by force; involuntary", God's goodness isn't voluntary - he HAS to do it. He does not get Dat's ever-present choice between "A" and "NonA", and has no moral autonomy because of it.

Subject to God, certainly (everything is subject to God). It is objective, however, by definition – insofar as it exists independent of human apprehension.
So our morality is objective to a cheetah? Can a subjective morality be objective? You've stated that meaning is either objective or not actual;isn't morality the same?

If you concede that God can only act benevolently

Inasmuch as we can only act humanly. Benevolence is part of God's nature.
We act humanly because we are not species-autonomous. We have been given our species. If we could choose between being penguins and people, we'd have species agency. If we could choose any species, then we'd have autonomy.

In the same way, God can only choose good, and is not morally autonomous.

then you concede that he is not morally autonomous.

You are placing morality outside the character of God, as if it was something that is not subject to him.
Strawman - God can be morality, but that means he is not morally autonomous, because he cannot choose anything immoral. Morality doesn't have to be outside of him.
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 3:44:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 8:44:37 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 8/13/2009 7:27:25 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/13/2009 7:05:23 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Datc, are you saying we do or don't have free will?

We have absolute free will.
There is NOTHING to stop me walking out of my house and killing someone.
I would, more than likely, have to pay the consequences, but I am utterly free to do whatever vile thing I can imagine.
I can also choose NOT to.
What's your point panda-face?

Silly DAT.

If you don't go out of your house and kill someone, it could be for a plethora of reasons (including, but not limited to): you don't want to suffer the consequences; your religious beliefs say that it's immoral; etc. However all of these reasons for your "choice" have already been determined and you had no choice over them. If you don't want to suffer the consequences, it's because you know what those consequences entail (based on previous people who have acted in such a manner). If you believe it is immoral, it's based on the teachings of the religion which you have "chosen" (which also happened for a reason, i.e. you were born into it, someone persuaded you to follow it, etc.). The point is that every single choice that we make is based on something that happened in the past, and when you trace that reasoning back, it becomes apparent that we've had no real choice as past actions determine our present choices. This is a very short explanation of why we have no free will.

OR no kind of explanation AT ALL for something totally untrue.
The things you've mentioned may INFLUENCE me in not going out and murdering a complete stranger BUT they do NOT prevent me: I have ABSOLUTE free will to WHATEVER I (within the laws of the natural world) wish to do.
Your sub-freudian clap-trap will not pass muster here: the enemy wants to take away our choice, in the last century through the lie of psychology and in this through genetics. (wait and see!)
The Cross.. the Cross.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 7:51:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You concede that it is impossible for god to be immoral

Right.

meaning he is forced to be moral.

Wrong. Non sequitur. If what you are saying MEANS involuntary, then why not use a word more specific?

God's goodness isn't voluntary

Unless of course he chose his nature… who knows, it IS God. Unless you can PROVE that omnibeneovlence is contingent upon morally autonomy, then I'm done with this circumlocution.

You've stated that meaning is either objective or not actual; isn't morality the same?

Yes. But morality is objective by definition even if it stems from God. Meaning exists independent of human apprehension. I'm not certain why you believe humans and God to be equivalents.

The contradiction is the lack of moral autonomy, while forced benevolence exists.

Even if true, show the contradiction. There is no contradiction here unless YOU decided that benevolence is contingent upon moral autonomy.

Which is a concession of the point that God is a slave to his nature.

Or he could very well choose to be logically determined.
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 11:04:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 7:51:25 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
You concede that it is impossible for god to be immoral

Right.

meaning he is forced to be moral.

Wrong. Non sequitur. If what you are saying MEANS involuntary, then why not use a word more specific?
It's follows perfectly.
1. Omnibenevolence means always choosing benevolence, as opposed to malevolence.
2. Moral autonomy is the ability to choose between morality and immorality.
3. Benevolence = morality.
4. Malevolence = immorality.
5. The Christian God is attributed with omnibenevolence.
6. The Christian God must always choose benevolence.
7. The Christian God is not morally autonomous.

God's goodness isn't voluntary

Unless of course he chose his nature… who knows, it IS God. Unless you can PROVE that omnibeneovlence is contingent upon morally autonomy, then I'm done with this circumlocution.
If he chooses omnibenevolence, he chooses to lose moral autonomy. Omnibenevolence and moral autonomy are mutually exclusive by definition. You logically cannot have two choices (autonomy, between moral and immoral) and one choice (omnibenevolence, only moral) at the same time. Show me that they can coexist.
You've stated that meaning is either objective or not actual; isn't morality the same?

Yes. But morality is objective by definition even if it stems from God.
Ipse dixit. How can a morality be objective if it stems from an agent?
Meaning exists independent of human apprehension. I'm not certain why you believe humans and God to be equivalents.
If morality stems from God, how can it be any more 'objective' than morality stemming from Socrates?
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 5:32:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
1. Omnibenevolence means always choosing benevolence, as opposed to malevolence.

So it is simply a matter of your first premise being incorrect. Omnibenevolence does not mean always choosing benevolence. It means he IS all good.

Ipse dixit.

Not quite. Objective means that it exists independent of human apprehension. Morality defined via God, exists independent of human apprehension. Therefore morality is objective by definition.

If morality stems from God, how can it be any more 'objective' than morality stemming from Socrates?

The former can be objective, the latter cannot… This is not even a question within academic philosophy. You are playing with words, not points.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 9:22:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 5:32:17 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
1. Omnibenevolence means always choosing benevolence, as opposed to malevolence.

So it is simply a matter of your first premise being incorrect. Omnibenevolence does not mean always choosing benevolence. It means he IS all good.

However, the reason he is entirely good is because it is inherent to him. He has no choice over whether or not to be good. So he is still lacking in moral autonomy. The distinction is between his identity, and his nature. His nature forces him to act a certain way, so we can never know whether or not he would have acted that way had he not been forced to.

Ipse dixit.

Not quite. Objective means that it exists independent of human apprehension. Morality defined via God, exists independent of human apprehension. Therefore morality is objective by definition.

It does not matter if morality is objective. What matters is how we make the determination of whether or not a being is moral. We do so by judging their actions, but if their actions are forced, how can we judge whether or not they are moral?
The fact that God is omnibenevolent is a fact of his nature, not necessarily of his identity. What we want to determine is whether his identity is omnibenevolent, but we cannot do so because he lacks autonomy.

If morality stems from God, how can it be any more 'objective' than morality stemming from Socrates?

The former can be objective, the latter cannot… This is not even a question within academic philosophy. You are playing with words, not points.
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 2:44:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 5:32:17 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
1. Omnibenevolence means always choosing benevolence, as opposed to malevolence.

So it is simply a matter of your first premise being incorrect. Omnibenevolence does not mean always choosing benevolence. It means he IS all good.
He is all good, ergo he must do all good. Reword the first premise, and add a second one after it to:
1. Omnibenevolence means being all good.
2. Being all good means, among other things, always doing good and acting benevolently.

And the proof stands once more.

Ipse dixit.

Not quite. Objective means that it exists independent of human apprehension. Morality defined via God, exists independent of human apprehension. Therefore morality is objective by definition.

Then doesn't morality defined by me exist independently of Godly apprehension, insofar that I came up with it rather than a God - making my morality objective to God?

Then we have the problem of free will - if God were all good he wouldn't allow bad to happen.

Finally, if dolphins had a 'morality', would it then be objective? If chimpanzees had a morality, would it be objective?

If morality stems from God, how can it be any more 'objective' than morality stemming from Socrates?

The former can be objective, the latter cannot… This is not even a question within academic philosophy. You are playing with words, not points.
What if a human came up with a moral code mirroring God's? Given enough time, it ought to happen. In fact, if we accept the Bible as a moral code, and anybody came up with a similar moral code independently, would their morality be objective?
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 8:07:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I can answer your question here. What you say after is your own choice. The greek word 'omni' refers to capability rather than an absolute trait. Thus omnibenevolence refers to God's all powerful ability to choose to be good or not. To further the thought train. Despite his now proven ability to choose to not be good, I believe that he is still always good. This would be more reason to respect him rather than hate him.
While we don't understand everything that God does. We should understand that he does so for our own good. We should also understand that God is not responsible for every event he might allow bad things to happen, but he doesn't ever actually do things that are bad.
This raises a question. Why would God allow these bad things to happen? For several possible reasons. 1. We are sinful man and God being a just God as much a good God must allow us to suffer our own consequences. Thus we, not God, are responsible. 2. We learn or do or become something better if we endure this trial rather than escape it. i.e. Freed slave Frederick Douglas is well known for being a strong opposer of slavery in his time. His words and actions are responsible for many victories in the field of freedom. This has created a better today. While this does not justify the cruel act of his enslavement it does show us that through this trial we are a better society and that is that trial had not occurred we would not have gained this good.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.