Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An "All Good" God is Just Wishful thinking

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:05:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't understand why many people assume God is all-good. Or, for that matter, all-powerful and all-knowing. It is possible that a evil "god" exists, or a mostly good kinda a jerk "God" exists. Also, a somewhat powerful or somewhat knowing. I think that it is just wishful thinking to believe that God is all-good ect. People want God to be all good, so they choose to believe it. Do you guys think a "God/demi-God" might exist that is not 100% good, knowing or powerful?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:07:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:09:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:08:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:07:35 PM, OberHerr wrote:
No.

Why not?

Because I believe that the God I worship is an all-powerful all-knowing God, who is benevolent.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:14:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are different reasons for why people think God is all good, all knowing, or all powerful. A few minutes ago, I voted on a debateover the modal ontological argument.

http://www.debate.org...

If that argument is sound, it would follow that God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. There's one reason.

I also think it follows from various things found in the Bible, and given a good historical argument for Jesus' claim to be a prophet and messiah, combined with his resurrection of the dead, and his belief in the authority of the Old Testament, it would seem to follow that God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. And there are a few books out there that argue for the resurrection of Jesus on historical grounds:

The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright.

The Resurrection of Jesus by Mike Licona

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas

The Resurrection of Jesus by Pinchas Lapide

It also seems to follow from the moral argument from God that God is necessarily good. According to the moral argument, the distinction between good and evil is grounded in God. Since, between good and evil, good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided, it follows that God only prefers good and never prefers evil, which means God is wholly good.

Yes, I do think it's possible for a demi-god of some sort to exist who is not all good or all powerful. Depending on how you define "demi-god," any demonic being could serve as an example.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:14:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
There are different reasons for why people think God is all good, all knowing, or all powerful. A few minutes ago, I voted on a debateover the modal ontological argument.

http://www.debate.org...

If that argument is sound, it would follow that God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. There's one reason.

I also think it follows from various things found in the Bible, and given a good historical argument for Jesus' claim to be a prophet and messiah, combined with his resurrection of the dead, and his belief in the authority of the Old Testament, it would seem to follow that God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. And there are a few books out there that argue for the resurrection of Jesus on historical grounds:

The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright.

The Resurrection of Jesus by Mike Licona

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas

The Resurrection of Jesus by Pinchas Lapide

It also seems to follow from the moral argument from God that God is necessarily good. According to the moral argument, the distinction between good and evil is grounded in God. Since, between good and evil, good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided, it follows that God only prefers good and never prefers evil, which means God is wholly good.

Yes, I do think it's possible for a demi-god of some sort to exist who is not all good or all powerful. Depending on how you define "demi-god," any demonic being could serve as an example.

I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:39:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

I think the Bible is contradictory. Based on real world experience, I believe that drowning the world in immoral. So, the Bible cannot be 100% true. Either God is not all good, or he did not drown everyone/kill babies.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:50:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:39:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I think the Bible is contradictory. Based on real world experience, I believe that drowning the world in immoral. So, the Bible cannot be 100% true. Either God is not all good, or he did not drown everyone/kill babies.

The soundness of the moral argument is independent of the Bible, and we don't need the Bible to find examples of evil and suffering. If the moral argument is sound, then for whatever evil and suffering there is in the world, God has a morally justifiable reason for allowing or causing it.

I would apply the same thing to the Bible. I wouldn't conclude that the Bible is contradictory just because it says (1) God is perfectly good and (2) God creates a lot of suffering. Rather, I would conclude (3) God has a morally justifiable reason for creating a lot of suffering.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:28:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:39:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

I think the Bible is contradictory. Based on real world experience, I believe that drowning the world in immoral. So, the Bible cannot be 100% true. Either God is not all good, or he did not drown everyone/kill babies.

It's only contradictory if you assume that God should submit to your morality. Without God, your morality is nothing more than subjective opinion so why would you think that God should be bound by a subjective morality??
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:35:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:28:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:39:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

I think the Bible is contradictory. Based on real world experience, I believe that drowning the world in immoral. So, the Bible cannot be 100% true. Either God is not all good, or he did not drown everyone/kill babies.

It's only contradictory if you assume that God should submit to your morality. Without God, your morality is nothing more than subjective opinion so why would you think that God should be bound by a subjective morality??

I think that I possess the evidence and ability to declare that "murdering first borns and drowning people" is immoral the way God did them in the Bible.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:54:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:35:16 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:28:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:39:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

I think the Bible is contradictory. Based on real world experience, I believe that drowning the world in immoral. So, the Bible cannot be 100% true. Either God is not all good, or he did not drown everyone/kill babies.

It's only contradictory if you assume that God should submit to your morality. Without God, your morality is nothing more than subjective opinion so why would you think that God should be bound by a subjective morality??

I think that I possess the evidence and ability to declare that "murdering first borns and drowning people" is immoral the way God did them in the Bible.

I'm not convinced.

Prove to me that you posses this evidence and ability.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:06:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:54:20 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:35:16 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:28:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:39:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

I think the Bible is contradictory. Based on real world experience, I believe that drowning the world in immoral. So, the Bible cannot be 100% true. Either God is not all good, or he did not drown everyone/kill babies.

It's only contradictory if you assume that God should submit to your morality. Without God, your morality is nothing more than subjective opinion so why would you think that God should be bound by a subjective morality??

I think that I possess the evidence and ability to declare that "murdering first borns and drowning people" is immoral the way God did them in the Bible.

I'm not convinced.

Prove to me that you posses this evidence and ability.

I think any sane non-psychopathic person should be able to tell from the world that drowning everyone and murdering 1st borns is immoral. I don't have the patience to explain it in detail.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:10:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:09:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:08:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:07:35 PM, OberHerr wrote:
No.

Why not?

Because I believe that the God I worship is an all-powerful all-knowing God, who is benevolent.

This, for the record, is an awesome response.

twocupcake: An all good God is just wishful thinking.
Ober: No it isn't.
twocupcake: Why not?
Ober: Because I believe in an all good God!

http://en.wikipedia.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:13:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:35:16 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:28:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:39:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

I think the Bible is contradictory. Based on real world experience, I believe that drowning the world in immoral. So, the Bible cannot be 100% true. Either God is not all good, or he did not drown everyone/kill babies.

It's only contradictory if you assume that God should submit to your morality. Without God, your morality is nothing more than subjective opinion so why would you think that God should be bound by a subjective morality??

I think that I possess the evidence and ability to declare that "murdering first borns and drowning people" is immoral the way God did them in the Bible.

You really have no basis for claiming that it's wrong, other than your own opinion. Could an omniscient God see something that you might not be considering?? Might there have been something that would have been detrimental to all of humanity had He not done those things??
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:18:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 4:10:40 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:09:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:08:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:07:35 PM, OberHerr wrote:
No.

Why not?

Because I believe that the God I worship is an all-powerful all-knowing God, who is benevolent.

This, for the record, is an awesome response.

twocupcake: An all good God is just wishful thinking.

Except ober was probably responding to the question:

'Do you guys think a "God/demi-God" might exist that is not 100% good, knowing or powerful?'

Ober: No it isn't.

With the response 'No'.

twocupcake: Why not?
Ober: Because I believe in an all good God!

http://en.wikipedia.org...
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 6:41:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 4:18:37 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/12/2013 4:10:40 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:09:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:08:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:07:35 PM, OberHerr wrote:
No.

Why not?

Because I believe that the God I worship is an all-powerful all-knowing God, who is benevolent.

This, for the record, is an awesome response.

twocupcake: An all good God is just wishful thinking.

Except ober was probably responding to the question:

'Do you guys think a "God/demi-God" might exist that is not 100% good, knowing or powerful?'

Ober: No it isn't.

With the response 'No'.

Which doesn't change anything because Ober is basing the mere possibility on something on his own personal beliefs. If he beliefs in something, then it is necessarily true. The essence of wishful thinking!


twocupcake: Why not?
Ober: Because I believe in an all good God!

http://en.wikipedia.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 7:33:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 6:41:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/12/2013 4:18:37 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/12/2013 4:10:40 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:09:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:08:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:07:35 PM, OberHerr wrote:
No.

Why not?

Because I believe that the God I worship is an all-powerful all-knowing God, who is benevolent.

This, for the record, is an awesome response.

twocupcake: An all good God is just wishful thinking.

Except ober was probably responding to the question:

'Do you guys think a "God/demi-God" might exist that is not 100% good, knowing or powerful?'

Ober: No it isn't.

With the response 'No'.

Which doesn't change anything because Ober is basing the mere possibility on something on his own personal beliefs. If he beliefs in something, then it is necessarily true. The essence of wishful thinking!

I have more reasons that that, but I tend to hate debating religion, or covincing people why I believe something.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 8:10:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

Omnibenevolence can be defined without explicit reference to the Bible. If a random scripture says something along the lines of "Blarg always does morally good things, and Blarg kills babies solely because it gives him sexual pleasure" then we can coherently speak of Blarg not being omnibenevolent EVEN THOUGH Blarg evaluates himself as such.

If we cannot coherently do so, then having omnibenevolence is trivially true for any supposed deity regardless of the deities actions or intentions. It would lead to a meta-ethical relativism where two deities of opposing beliefs, actions, and intentions could both be called omnibenevolent.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 8:21:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:05:43 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I don't understand why many people assume God is all-good. Or, for that matter, all-powerful and all-knowing. It is possible that a evil "god" exists, or a mostly good kinda a jerk "God" exists. Also, a somewhat powerful or somewhat knowing. I think that it is just wishful thinking to believe that God is all-good ect. People want God to be all good, so they choose to believe it. Do you guys think a "God/demi-God" might exist that is not 100% good, knowing or powerful?

God gave us his ONLY SON... So we could have eternal life!
God is PURE LOVE!

Dogknox
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 8:32:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

What a dangerous way of thinking, that there is, in fact, no evil in the world. If you believe all evil in the world is justified, then there should be no motivation whatsoever to fix any of the world's problems.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 8:48:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 8:10:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

Omnibenevolence can be defined without explicit reference to the Bible. If a random scripture says something along the lines of "Blarg always does morally good things, and Blarg kills babies solely because it gives him sexual pleasure" then we can coherently speak of Blarg not being omnibenevolent EVEN THOUGH Blarg evaluates himself as such.

If we cannot coherently do so, then having omnibenevolence is trivially true for any supposed deity regardless of the deities actions or intentions. It would lead to a meta-ethical relativism where two deities of opposing beliefs, actions, and intentions could both be called omnibenevolent.

I don't think God is omnibenevolent in the sense of always and only doing what benefits each creature. Haven't we had this conversation before? I'm having a deja vous.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 8:49:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 8:32:56 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

What a dangerous way of thinking, that there is, in fact, no evil in the world.

But that isn't my thinking.

If you believe all evil in the world is justified, then there should be no motivation whatsoever to fix any of the world's problems.

That doesn't seem to follow.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 9:06:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 8:49:51 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 8:32:56 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

What a dangerous way of thinking, that there is, in fact, no evil in the world.

But that isn't my thinking.

Sure it is. If God, the absolutely, objectively best judge of moral issues deems that what we perceive as "evil" should remain, then why should we deem otherwise?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 9:16:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 9:06:36 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 1/12/2013 8:49:51 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 8:32:56 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

What a dangerous way of thinking, that there is, in fact, no evil in the world.

But that isn't my thinking.

Sure it is.

No, it's not.

If God, the absolutely, objectively best judge of moral issues deems that what we perceive as "evil" should remain, then why should we deem otherwise?

We can't read God's mind, so we can't know his sovereign will until after the fact.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 9:18:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 8:48:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 8:10:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

Omnibenevolence can be defined without explicit reference to the Bible. If a random scripture says something along the lines of "Blarg always does morally good things, and Blarg kills babies solely because it gives him sexual pleasure" then we can coherently speak of Blarg not being omnibenevolent EVEN THOUGH Blarg evaluates himself as such.

If we cannot coherently do so, then having omnibenevolence is trivially true for any supposed deity regardless of the deities actions or intentions. It would lead to a meta-ethical relativism where two deities of opposing beliefs, actions, and intentions could both be called omnibenevolent.

I don't think God is omnibenevolent in the sense of always and only doing what benefits each creature. Haven't we had this conversation before? I'm having a deja vous.

I recall talking about something like this with Apeiron.

My question then, as now, is what kind of scenario it would take for a universe-creating, omniscient God (not necessarily Judeo-Christian) to NOT be omnibenevolent?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 9:20:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 9:18:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/12/2013 8:48:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 8:10:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

Omnibenevolence can be defined without explicit reference to the Bible. If a random scripture says something along the lines of "Blarg always does morally good things, and Blarg kills babies solely because it gives him sexual pleasure" then we can coherently speak of Blarg not being omnibenevolent EVEN THOUGH Blarg evaluates himself as such.

If we cannot coherently do so, then having omnibenevolence is trivially true for any supposed deity regardless of the deities actions or intentions. It would lead to a meta-ethical relativism where two deities of opposing beliefs, actions, and intentions could both be called omnibenevolent.

I don't think God is omnibenevolent in the sense of always and only doing what benefits each creature. Haven't we had this conversation before? I'm having a deja vous.

I recall talking about something like this with Apeiron.

My question then, as now, is what kind of scenario it would take for a universe-creating, omnipotent God (not necessarily Judeo-Christian) to NOT be omnibenevolent?

Fixed.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 9:25:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 9:18:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
My question then, as now, is what kind of scenario it would take for a universe-creating, omniscient God (not necessarily Judeo-Christian) to NOT be omnibenevolent?

Anything God did that was contrary to the benefit of some creature would mean he was not omnibenevolent in the sense of always and only doing what benefits every creature. So, for example, when God casts Satan into the lake of fire, it is not for Satan's benefit. In fact, it does Satan harm.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 9:26:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 4:06:24 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:54:20 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:35:16 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:28:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:39:27 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:35:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:22:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I agree that there are good philosophy arguments. But based on the Bible, I would not call God all-good. For example, God flooded everybody, killed Egyptian babies and tortured Jobs.

If you assume the Bible is true, then you have to assume that what the Bible says about morality is true. According to the Bible, God is perfectly good, and however strongly we may protest against God reeking all kinds of havoc in our lives, God is morally justified in doing so.

But besides that, if the moral argument for God is sound, then it would follow that God has a morally justified reason for whatever he does or refrains from doing, whether we know what that reason is or not. So if you believe there is a perfectly good God based on the moral argument, and you see evil and suffering in the world, the conclusion you should come to is that there is a morally justifiable reason for God either causing or allowing it.

I think the Bible is contradictory. Based on real world experience, I believe that drowning the world in immoral. So, the Bible cannot be 100% true. Either God is not all good, or he did not drown everyone/kill babies.

It's only contradictory if you assume that God should submit to your morality. Without God, your morality is nothing more than subjective opinion so why would you think that God should be bound by a subjective morality??

I think that I possess the evidence and ability to declare that "murdering first borns and drowning people" is immoral the way God did them in the Bible.

I'm not convinced.

Prove to me that you posses this evidence and ability.

I think any sane non-psychopathic person should be able to tell from the world that drowning everyone and murdering 1st borns is immoral. I don't have the patience to explain it in detail.

As far as I know that is no much details of how the world was before the flooding, so I'm curious as to; from where did you form your conclusion?
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 4:02:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:05:43 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I don't understand why many people assume God is all-good. Or, for that matter, all-powerful and all-knowing. It is possible that a evil "god" exists, or a mostly good kinda a jerk "God" exists. Also, a somewhat powerful or somewhat knowing. I think that it is just wishful thinking to believe that God is all-good ect. People want God to be all good, so they choose to believe it. Do you guys think a "God/demi-God" might exist that is not 100% good, knowing or powerful?

Of course there is lots of them, The God of atheistism, The God of reason, The God of philosophy, The God of science, The God of Pan, The God of spirits and many of the so called gods of this world that many worship with money, time, and trust. In debt do we trust! Their are the Sport Gods, beauty Goddess's and so on. And your right to assume any of these gods are all-good, or usefull for that matter.