Total Posts:130|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Omnibenevolence...

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 4:30:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.


I have to say RT, I stopped posting because it seemed you weren't being very honest. At one point you said that the argument wasn't talking about God knowledge or Man's knowledge of the greater good, and that my pointing that out was besides the point.. I thought that was pretty rediculous; especially when Gods/mans knowledge of the greater good being excluded was a big part of your argument failing.

The last argument wasn't very good, and this one seems like it's ugly cousin.. lol
: 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.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 4:41:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 4:30:17 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.


I have to say RT, I stopped posting because it seemed you weren't being very honest.

I was being very honest. Nobody in the thread showed why the argument was wrong, and I was hoping that would be the case.

At one point you said that the argument wasn't talking about God knowledge or Man's knowledge of the greater good, and that my pointing that out was besides the point..

Straw-Man. I said God's knowledge of the truth wasn't relevant to the conversation, true, but I never claimed man's wasn't. Man's knowledge is key. If man has the knowledge that suffering leads to a greater good (which would have to be the case to avoid a gratuitous suffering problem), then there is no reason to stop it. You rebutted this by saying that prevention of the suffering could be for a greater good as well. I shut down that line of reasoning, because if both options would lead to the same amount of good, then it doesn't matter which option you take. Which contradicts premise 3. You didn't have anything interesting to say to that, besides the fact that you reject free-will. Which, is a pretty absurd position for the theist to take.

I thought that was pretty rediculous; especially when Gods/mans knowledge of the greater good being excluded was a big part of your argument failing.

I never claimed man's knowledge wasn't relevant, I said God's wasn't. It doesn't matter what God knows, either something leads to a greater good or it doesn't. That's what the argument was about, and your responses were nothing more than red-herrings.



The last argument wasn't very good, and this one seems like it's ugly cousin.. lol

Bare assertion. You cannot even name one good reason why it isn't, and you just go off on tangents about God's knowledge for some reason lol I found it funny, that you had the most interesting responses, but your whole position contradicted itself.

Both options, if happened, would lead to same amount of good....Oh, but it matters which option you chose. Yes, that makes a lot of sense...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 4:58:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.

What's your take on the difference between power and goodness? It seems to me that having power is the ability to actualize broadly logical states of affairs, whereas having moral goodness is to be just, charitable, gracious, honorable, etc. And these values don't seem as morally ambiguous as power...

What do you mean by a "more benevolent being"? ... Can we speak of a "most benevolent being" in the case of the apparent evil he allows? If so, then yes I agree that there is in fact a dilemma facing all theists except for the Christian theist.

For the Christian has a way out of the alternative: the noetics effects of sin + God's solution to it with Christ. van Inwagenian and Goetz are the foremost modern thinkers who articulate this Christian concept against the PoE dilemma.

I can discuss this more, but this is a very deep question of human existence, and much is learned about God and human history from it I think.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 4:58:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems more people spent time calling the argument names, instead of undermining the premises (which says a lot).

I thought today that one way to debunk premise 1, would be to claim that if suffering leads to a greater good that would not be present if prevention occurred, then suffering is ultimately good. Suffering is not ultimately good, therefore, suffering cannot be for a greater good which would not occur is prevention was the case. P1 finished. However, rejection of P1 means accepting gratuitous suffering exists. So I scrapped that idea. I'm hoping someone will knock this argument down, because I've said here before, I don't really like PoE's. The reason I have never liked PoE's like this, is because suffering could be for a greater good that we don't know about, meaning that we could never know if suffering was really gratuitous or not. That is an extremely convincing response to the general problem of gratuitous suffering.

However, when I seen a version of this argument in the Pwner vs Popculturepooka debate, it seemed to take care of that response. Now, I'm sincerely hoping someone puts it to an end.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 5:04:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 4:58:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It seems more people spent time calling the argument names, instead of undermining the premises (which says a lot).

I thought today that one way to debunk premise 1, would be to claim that if suffering leads to a greater good that would not be present if prevention occurred, then suffering is ultimately good. Suffering is not ultimately good, therefore, suffering cannot be for a greater good which would not occur is prevention was the case. P1 finished. However, rejection of P1 means accepting gratuitous suffering exists. So I scrapped that idea. I'm hoping someone will knock this argument down, because I've said here before, I don't really like PoE's. The reason I have never liked PoE's like this, is because suffering could be for a greater good that we don't know about, meaning that we could never know if suffering was really gratuitous or not. That is an extremely convincing response to the general problem of gratuitous suffering.

However, when I seen a version of this argument in the Pwner vs Popculturepooka debate, it seemed to take care of that response. Now, I'm sincerely hoping someone puts it to an end.

I highly recommend skimming my debate,

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

... particularily Contra-P1, our discourse can revolved around that. Because I'm with you that I don't think every evil occurs FOR some greater good on theism, even though God can bring good out from evil, there are times where suffering may be, for all we know, pointless.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 5:09:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 4:58:03 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.

What's your take on the difference between power and goodness? It seems to me that having power is the ability to actualize broadly logical states of affairs, whereas having moral goodness is to be just, charitable, gracious, honorable, etc. And these values don't seem as morally ambiguous as power...

Are you implying that "omni" means something different, when applied to different subjects? I sincerely fail to see how that is the case (excuse me if I am making a straw-man argument here). Even if power is extremely different than benevolence, if omnipotence means "being as powerful as logically possible", then "omni" benevolent means "being as benevolent as logically possible".

To say that "omni" only means what it means, to one of his attributes but not the other for no good reasons...Seems like special pleading.


What do you mean by a "more benevolent being"? ... Can we speak of a "most benevolent being" in the case of the apparent evil he allows? If so, then yes I agree that there is in fact a dilemma facing all theists except for the Christian theist.

The Christian theist is facing the biggest problem. They are the ones who believe their God is omnibenevolent. This is what we have been talking about the whole time, you know?


For the Christian has a way out of the alternative: the noetics effects of sin + God's solution to it with Christ. van Inwagenian and Goetz are the foremost modern thinkers who articulate this Christian concept against the PoE dilemma.

Is the solution for a greater good, which would not be present if no such situation occurred? If so, then that just adheres to P1. Also, naming that modern thinkers conjured up some solution, is not really much of a good response on your half. I can plenty of modern thinkers on both sides of the issue.


I can discuss this more, but this is a very deep question of human existence, and much is learned about God and human history from it I think.

I would like to discuss his more. I just want to know the knock out punch for this argument, because it cannot be this easy.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 5:10:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 5:04:34 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:58:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It seems more people spent time calling the argument names, instead of undermining the premises (which says a lot).

I thought today that one way to debunk premise 1, would be to claim that if suffering leads to a greater good that would not be present if prevention occurred, then suffering is ultimately good. Suffering is not ultimately good, therefore, suffering cannot be for a greater good which would not occur is prevention was the case. P1 finished. However, rejection of P1 means accepting gratuitous suffering exists. So I scrapped that idea. I'm hoping someone will knock this argument down, because I've said here before, I don't really like PoE's. The reason I have never liked PoE's like this, is because suffering could be for a greater good that we don't know about, meaning that we could never know if suffering was really gratuitous or not. That is an extremely convincing response to the general problem of gratuitous suffering.

However, when I seen a version of this argument in the Pwner vs Popculturepooka debate, it seemed to take care of that response. Now, I'm sincerely hoping someone puts it to an end.

I highly recommend skimming my debate,

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

... particularily Contra-P1, our discourse can revolved around that. Because I'm with you that I don't think every evil occurs FOR some greater good on theism, even though God can bring good out from evil, there are times where suffering may be, for all we know, pointless.

"there are times where suffering may be, for all we know, pointless."

A being who made it a point, a point for a greater good, would be more benevolent, than a being who didn't. God is supposed to be OMNIbenevolent. I see a clear problem here, and I swear on my dead best friend, that I am not being intellectually dishonest.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 5:43:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 5:09:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

What's your take on the difference between power and goodness? It seems to me that having power is the ability to actualize broadly logical states of affairs, whereas having moral goodness is to be just, charitable, gracious, honorable, etc. And these values don't seem as morally ambiguous as power...

Are you implying that "omni" means something different, when applied to different subjects? I sincerely fail to see how that is the case (excuse me if I am making a straw-man argument here). Even if power is extremely different than benevolence, if omnipotence means "being as powerful as logically possible", then "omni" benevolent means "being as benevolent as logically possible".

Nah you didn't strawman, it's just clarification stuff at this point. If I say the moon is all macaroni & cheese, as if there were no other thing which has as much macaroni & cheese anywhere in the universe, then I wouldn't mean that it was also all sausage too. This is a miserable (tasty) analogy but it's good enough for making the point that the content of what we mean by power isn't the same as what we mean by morally good. And that's regardless of whether or not an entity has all of one or the other or both.

So it seems to me that power and goodness are clearly distinct attributes.


To say that "omni" only means what it means, to one of his attributes but not the other for no good reasons...Seems like special pleading.

Nah, no special pleading, I affirm that if God is good, then he's maximally good, and if God is powerful, then he is maximally powerful, etc.




What do you mean by a "more benevolent being"? ... Can we speak of a "most benevolent being" in the case of the apparent evil he allows? If so, then yes I agree that there is in fact a dilemma facing all theists except for the Christian theist.

The Christian theist is facing the biggest problem. They are the ones who believe their God is omnibenevolent. This is what we have been talking about the whole time, you know?

I don't see how that's true, in my studies it seems that Christianity uniquely answers the PoE, so much so that I've even considered making a Christian particularist argument using God's answer to evil, (Christ's atonement) as an argument of sorts against all other types of theism.

Have you read my debate with UA yet?



For the Christian has a way out of the alternative: the noetics effects of sin + God's solution to it with Christ. van Inwagenian and Goetz are the foremost modern thinkers who articulate this Christian concept against the PoE dilemma.

Is the solution for a greater good, which would not be present if no such situation occurred?

No, it's existence is a-teleological.

If so, then that just adheres to P1. Also, naming that modern thinkers conjured up some solution, is not really much of a good response on your half. I can plenty of modern thinkers on both sides of the issue.

Now this is a strawman haha, I never said that modern thinkers have invented a solution, thank the gods, but rather that they're the ones who have interest and who have articulated the ancient Christian concept.


I can discuss this more, but this is a very deep question of human existence, and much is learned about God and human history from it I think.

I would like to discuss his more. I just want to know the knock out punch for this argument, because it cannot be this easy.

No no, I'm not saying that there is one true blue knock down argument for the PoE, nor am I agreeing that the PoE easily knocks theism in general out of the race. What I AM saying is that this is a deep deep existential question, that I think has a Christian basis for being answered.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 5:50:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 5:10:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

A being who made it a point, a point for a greater good, would be more benevolent, than a being who didn't.

I don't see how that follows in some cases given a resolution of divine non-interference (barring revelatory circumstances) that God entered into prior to our creation. Since love presupposes its object, one can't say that God somehow wronged a creator who didn't yet exist.

God is supposed to be OMNIbenevolent. I see a clear problem here, and I swear on my dead best friend, that I am not being intellectually dishonest.

I know you're genuine, sorry for your friend. PoE, is, oddly enough, a topic where I am most interested since, like you and everyone on here, I've experienced suffering that I can't put into words.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 5:51:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 5:50:34 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/18/2013 5:10:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

A being who made it a point, a point for a greater good, would be more benevolent, than a being who didn't.

I don't see how that follows in some cases given a resolution of divine non-interference (barring revelatory circumstances) that God entered into prior to our creation. Since love presupposes its object, one can't say that God somehow wronged a creature who didn't yet exist.

God is supposed to be OMNIbenevolent. I see a clear problem here, and I swear on my dead best friend, that I am not being intellectually dishonest.

I know you're genuine, sorry for your friend. The PoE, is, oddly enough, a topic where I am most interested since, like you and everyone on here, I've experienced suffering that I can't put into words.

fix'd fix'd
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 6:02:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 4:41:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have to say RT, I stopped posting because it seemed you weren't being very honest.

I was being very honest. Nobody in the thread showed why the argument was wrong, and I was hoping that would be the case.

Just because you aren't willing to admit that you were proven wrong, doesn't mean that you weren't.

At one point you said that the argument wasn't talking about God knowledge or Man's knowledge of the greater good, and that my pointing that out was besides the point..

Straw-Man. I said God's knowledge of the truth wasn't relevant to the conversation, true, but I never claimed man's wasn't. Man's knowledge is key. If man has the knowledge that suffering leads to a greater good (which would have to be the case to avoid a gratuitous suffering problem), then there is no reason to stop it.

Nah-man. That fact that the greater good is only known by God, makes this relevant. If man has no knowledge of the greater good, how it will be accomplished, when it will be accomplished, and never will until it is accomplished... then the greater good is outside of mans control and is therefore none of his concern.

When you take that, and Gods instruction to make moral choices, you have logical and consistant reason to agree with P3.

You rebutted this by saying that prevention of the suffering could be for a greater good as well. I shut down that line of reasoning, because if both options would lead to the same amount of good, then it doesn't matter which option you take.

I rebutted with an argument of my own, which didn't merely say: "it doesnt' matter what you do". The choices you make will result in good no matter what, this is true, but this doesn't mean that you are right for making any choice. The reason things result in good no matter what, is because God uses immoral choices to accomplish it; but these are still immoral choices-- that is "ought not's"

Which contradicts premise 3. You didn't have anything interesting to say to that, besides the fact that you reject free-will. Which, is a pretty absurd position for the theist to take.

No it doesn't, because all P3 says, is you ought to prevent suffering. Your saying that all our decisions are hinged upon the greater good, which I reubtted several times by it not being in our control, nor our concern.

I believe in the compatibilist view of free-will, which is hardly free-will.. But So do Joneszj, Phil0 Christ0s, and KRFournier(I believe). No offense to all the others, but I don't see anyone defend theism(Christianity in particular) better then the Reformed.

I thought that was pretty rediculous; especially when Gods/mans knowledge of the greater good being excluded was a big part of your argument failing.

I never claimed man's knowledge wasn't relevant, I said God's wasn't. It doesn't matter what God knows, either something leads to a greater good or it doesn't. That's what the argument was about, and your responses were nothing more than red-herrings.

It all does, but only God knows how, when, why; and he uses the choices people make that are immoral as well.

The last argument wasn't very good, and this one seems like it's ugly cousin.. lol

Bare assertion. You cannot even name one good reason why it isn't, and you just go off on tangents about God's knowledge for some reason lol I found it funny, that you had the most interesting responses, but your whole position contradicted itself.

Both options, if happened, would lead to same amount of good....Oh, but it matters which option you chose. Yes, that makes a lot of sense...


Lol.. just read the above.
: 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.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 6:02:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.

I just deny that God is omnibenevolent.
"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
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 6:19:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 6:02:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.

I just deny that God is omnibenevolent.


Really??
: 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.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 6:52:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 6:19:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 3/18/2013 6:02:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.

I just deny that God is omnibenevolent.


Really??

Yeah, think about it. To be benevolent is to do good to somebody. To be omnibenevolent (at least the way most folks seems to define it) is to do as much good as possible to as many people as possible. So if there's even one person who God sends to hell, then God isn't omnibenevolent. I don't think the Bible teaches that he is.

I think the mistake a lot of people make is in thinking you can stick an "omni" or an "all" in front of any of God's attributes and arrive at sound theology. But that's absurd. God is wrathful, but that doesn't mean he's omniwrathful. God is also benevolent, but that doesn't mean he's omnibenevolent.
"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
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:09:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 6:52:05 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2013 6:19:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 3/18/2013 6:02:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.

I just deny that God is omnibenevolent.


Really??

Yeah, think about it. To be benevolent is to do good to somebody. To be omnibenevolent (at least the way most folks seems to define it) is to do as much good as possible to as many people as possible. So if there's even one person who God sends to hell, then God isn't omnibenevolent. I don't think the Bible teaches that he is.

I think the mistake a lot of people make is in thinking you can stick an "omni" or an "all" in front of any of God's attributes and arrive at sound theology. But that's absurd. God is wrathful, but that doesn't mean he's omniwrathful. God is also benevolent, but that doesn't mean he's omnibenevolent.


Ohhh I see what you're saying. But as you pointed out in your debate with PCP, Gods wrath is good. So.. would you say he's just not omnibenevolent in the sense that most people think?
: 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.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:09:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 5:43:43 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/18/2013 5:09:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

What's your take on the difference between power and goodness? It seems to me that having power is the ability to actualize broadly logical states of affairs, whereas having moral goodness is to be just, charitable, gracious, honorable, etc. And these values don't seem as morally ambiguous as power...

Are you implying that "omni" means something different, when applied to different subjects? I sincerely fail to see how that is the case (excuse me if I am making a straw-man argument here). Even if power is extremely different than benevolence, if omnipotence means "being as powerful as logically possible", then "omni" benevolent means "being as benevolent as logically possible".

Nah you didn't strawman, it's just clarification stuff at this point. If I say the moon is all macaroni & cheese, as if there were no other thing which has as much macaroni & cheese anywhere in the universe, then I wouldn't mean that it was also all sausage too. This is a miserable (tasty) analogy but it's good enough for making the point that the content of what we mean by power isn't the same as what we mean by morally good. And that's regardless of whether or not an entity has all of one or the other or both.

So it seems to me that power and goodness are clearly distinct attributes.

They are distinct attributes, I don't think I ever claimed they weren't. My point, is that if omnipotent means means the most logically powerful being, the omnibenevolent means the most logically benevolent being. Even though they are two completely different variables, that doesn't mean you can change the "omni" equation.



To say that "omni" only means what it means, to one of his attributes but not the other for no good reasons...Seems like special pleading.

Nah, no special pleading, I affirm that if God is good, then he's maximally good, and if God is powerful, then he is maximally powerful, etc.

Then a being who allows gratuitous suffering, would be less great, than a being who didn't assure that suffering was really for a benevolent purpose. Meaning, that a being who allowed pointless suffering, wouldn't be God if you define God as omnibenevolent.





What do you mean by a "more benevolent being"? ... Can we speak of a "most benevolent being" in the case of the apparent evil he allows? If so, then yes I agree that there is in fact a dilemma facing all theists except for the Christian theist.

The Christian theist is facing the biggest problem. They are the ones who believe their God is omnibenevolent. This is what we have been talking about the whole time, you know?

I don't see how that's true, in my studies it seems that Christianity uniquely answers the PoE, so much so that I've even considered making a Christian particularist argument using God's answer to evil, (Christ's atonement) as an argument of sorts against all other types of theism.

Have you read my debate with UA yet?



For the Christian has a way out of the alternative: the noetics effects of sin + God's solution to it with Christ. van Inwagenian and Goetz are the foremost modern thinkers who articulate this Christian concept against the PoE dilemma.

Is the solution for a greater good, which would not be present if no such situation occurred?

No, it's existence is a-teleological.

If so, then that just adheres to P1. Also, naming that modern thinkers conjured up some solution, is not really much of a good response on your half. I can plenty of modern thinkers on both sides of the issue.

Now this is a strawman haha, I never said that modern thinkers have invented a solution, thank the gods, but rather that they're the ones who have interest and who have articulated the ancient Christian concept.


I can discuss this more, but this is a very deep question of human existence, and much is learned about God and human history from it I think.

I would like to discuss his more. I just want to know the knock out punch for this argument, because it cannot be this easy.

No no, I'm not saying that there is one true blue knock down argument for the PoE, nor am I agreeing that the PoE easily knocks theism in general out of the race. What I AM saying is that this is a deep deep existential question, that I think has a Christian basis for being answered.

All I would like to know is this...Would a being who allowed pointless suffering, be less benevolent, or more benevolent than a being who didn't? If the being who allowed some suffering without being for a benevolent purpose was less benevolent, and you admit that some suffering is most likely pointless, how does that not show that an omnibenevolent God does not exist? I would just like a direct response to this.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:11:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 5:50:34 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/18/2013 5:10:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

A being who made it a point, a point for a greater good, would be more benevolent, than a being who didn't.

I don't see how that follows in some cases given a resolution of divine non-interference (barring revelatory circumstances) that God entered into prior to our creation. Since love presupposes its object, one can't say that God somehow wronged a creator who didn't yet exist.

I don't follow what you are saying here. How could a being who allowed pointless suffering, be more benevolent than a being who didn't? It seems you are dodging answering me directly.


God is supposed to be OMNIbenevolent. I see a clear problem here, and I swear on my dead best friend, that I am not being intellectually dishonest.

I know you're genuine, sorry for your friend. PoE, is, oddly enough, a topic where I am most interested since, like you and everyone on here, I've experienced suffering that I can't put into words.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:13:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 7:09:04 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

Ohhh I see what you're saying. But as you pointed out in your debate with PCP, Gods wrath is good. So.. would you say he's just not omnibenevolent in the sense that most people think?

Yes, that's what I would say. I don't think "all good" and "omnibenevolent" are synonyms. After all, forgiveness is benevolent, but if God were all-forgiving, then he would never punish any person for any reason. Nobody's sin would ever be held against them. But that were the case, then God would never express any wrath at all toward sin. And if he never expressed any wrath at all toward sin, then he wouldn't be all good.
"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
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:15:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 6:02:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.

I just deny that God is omnibenevolent.

Which is pretty much a reductio ad absurdum to me.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:17:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 6:02:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.

I just deny that God is omnibenevolent.

You can't, everyone knows that Atheists determine what Christians think.

Pay attention.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:21:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 6:02:39 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:41:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have to say RT, I stopped posting because it seemed you weren't being very honest.

I was being very honest. Nobody in the thread showed why the argument was wrong, and I was hoping that would be the case.

Just because you aren't willing to admit that you were proven wrong, doesn't mean that you weren't.

I am willing. I'm still waiting for a reason why it's wrong. People either call the argument names, or dodge the points.


At one point you said that the argument wasn't talking about God knowledge or Man's knowledge of the greater good, and that my pointing that out was besides the point..

Straw-Man. I said God's knowledge of the truth wasn't relevant to the conversation, true, but I never claimed man's wasn't. Man's knowledge is key. If man has the knowledge that suffering leads to a greater good (which would have to be the case to avoid a gratuitous suffering problem), then there is no reason to stop it.

Nah-man. That fact that the greater good is only known by God, makes this relevant. If man has no knowledge of the greater good, how it will be accomplished, when it will be accomplished, and never will until it is accomplished... then the greater good is outside of mans control and is therefore none of his concern.

Only if you don't believe in free will. If free will exists, then God's knowledge is dependent upon what our free choice will be. Also, if something is good, it's because of God's nature if he exists. It's not due to the knowledge of his nature.


When you take that, and Gods instruction to make moral choices, you have logical and consistant reason to agree with P3.

Of course, this is false. According to what you argued before, if you just stood there and watched a child get raped, that would cause the same amount of good if you intervened. This means, that it doesn't matter what you do either way. You are basically saying that God is ordering us to do things, which would not cause a greater good than it's alternative. Which, makes no sense.



You rebutted this by saying that prevention of the suffering could be for a greater good as well. I shut down that line of reasoning, because if both options would lead to the same amount of good, then it doesn't matter which option you take.

I rebutted with an argument of my own, which didn't merely say: "it doesnt' matter what you do". The choices you make will result in good no matter what, this is true, but this doesn't mean that you are right for making any choice. The reason things result in good no matter what, is because God uses immoral choices to accomplish it; but these are still immoral choices-- that is "ought not's"

Now we are getting somewhere. However, how can something be an immoral choice, if it doesn't lead to less good than it's alternative? Aren't you just slapping the label "immoral" on it, without their being any substance to it? This seems like the case, due to the action in question not causing any less good than it's alternative?


Which contradicts premise 3. You didn't have anything interesting to say to that, besides the fact that you reject free-will. Which, is a pretty absurd position for the theist to take.

No it doesn't, because all P3 says, is you ought to prevent suffering. Your saying that all our decisions are hinged upon the greater good, which I reubtted several times by it not being in our control, nor our concern.

All of our moral choices are based on the greater good, and if it's anybody concern, it's ours.


I believe in the compatibilist view of free-will, which is hardly free-will.. But So do Joneszj, Phil0 Christ0s, and KRFournier(I believe). No offense to all the others, but I don't see anyone defend theism(Christianity in particular) better then the Reformed.


I thought that was pretty rediculous; especially when Gods/mans knowledge of the greater good being excluded was a big part of your argument failing.

I never claimed man's knowledge wasn't relevant, I said God's wasn't. It doesn't matter what God knows, either something leads to a greater good or it doesn't. That's what the argument was about, and your responses were nothing more than red-herrings.

It all does, but only God knows how, when, why; and he uses the choices people make that are immoral as well.

What the outcome is/ will be =/= God's knowledge of what the outcome is/ will be.



The last argument wasn't very good, and this one seems like it's ugly cousin.. lol

Bare assertion. You cannot even name one good reason why it isn't, and you just go off on tangents about God's knowledge for some reason lol I found it funny, that you had the most interesting responses, but your whole position contradicted itself.

Both options, if happened, would lead to same amount of good....Oh, but it matters which option you chose. Yes, that makes a lot of sense...


Lol.. just read the above.

Dido.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:22:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 6:02:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2013 4:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists claim that omnipotence means that God is as powerful as logically possible. This means, that omnibenevolence means that God is the most benevolent as logically possible. If there is a creator of everything we see around us, how can he be labeled "God" (assuming omnibenevolence is a requirement) when there could clearly be a more benevolent being? A being who didn't create viruses that could kill us, for example, is more logically benevolent. This is of course, assuming that the viruses aren't for a greater good that we don't know about. If that's the case though, then we shouldn't prevent viruses, because they are for a greater good. Either way, this presents a clear problem for the theist.

I made a similar thread already, but nobody really had any interesting responses that solved the problem. Any takers? I really want to stomp on this argument, because I really hate the PoE, but I'm not seeing a way around it.

I just deny that God is omnibenevolent.

Which, if God exists, is the most likely option. This argument attacks a God defined as omnibenevolent. Your response, of course, takes care of the argument here.
Sola.Gratia
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:26:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 7:13:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2013 7:09:04 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

Ohhh I see what you're saying. But as you pointed out in your debate with PCP, Gods wrath is good. So.. would you say he's just not omnibenevolent in the sense that most people think?

Yes, that's what I would say. I don't think "all good" and "omnibenevolent" are synonyms. After all, forgiveness is benevolent, but if God were all-forgiving, then he would never punish any person for any reason. Nobody's sin would ever be held against them. But that were the case, then God would never express any wrath at all toward sin. And if he never expressed any wrath at all toward sin, then he wouldn't be all good.

Was kinda ify here until I remembered the verse that says God won't forgive those who blaspheme His Spirit.. So yea I see what your saying and would agree with you too on everything you said.. God is vengeful and full of wrath and is a jealous God.. And sin must be punished.. So yea good point here..
"What is sin? It is the glory of God not honored. Holiness of God not reverenced. Greatness of God not admired. Power of God not praised. Truth of God not sought. Wisdom of God not esteemed. Beauty of God not treasured. Goodness of God not savored. Faithfulness of God not trusted. Commandments of God not obeyed. Justice of God not respected. Wrath of God not feared. Grace of God not cherished. Presence of God not prized. Person of God not loved. That is sin." ~John Piper
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:30:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 7:26:59 PM, Sola.Gratia wrote:
At 3/18/2013 7:13:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2013 7:09:04 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

Ohhh I see what you're saying. But as you pointed out in your debate with PCP, Gods wrath is good. So.. would you say he's just not omnibenevolent in the sense that most people think?

Yes, that's what I would say. I don't think "all good" and "omnibenevolent" are synonyms. After all, forgiveness is benevolent, but if God were all-forgiving, then he would never punish any person for any reason. Nobody's sin would ever be held against them. But that were the case, then God would never express any wrath at all toward sin. And if he never expressed any wrath at all toward sin, then he wouldn't be all good.

Was kinda ify here until I remembered the verse that says God won't forgive those who blaspheme His Spirit.. So yea I see what your saying and would agree with you too on everything you said.. God is vengeful and full of wrath and is a jealous God.. And sin must be punished.. So yea good point here..

"God is vengeful and full of wrath and is a jealous God.. And sin must be punished.. So yea good point here.."

How can this be compatible with omnibenevolence? What you just described is a petty, and childish God. Even humans I know can rise above jealousy..This is the best humans can come up with?
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:41:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 7:30:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/18/2013 7:26:59 PM, Sola.Gratia wrote:
At 3/18/2013 7:13:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2013 7:09:04 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

Ohhh I see what you're saying. But as you pointed out in your debate with PCP, Gods wrath is good. So.. would you say he's just not omnibenevolent in the sense that most people think?

Yes, that's what I would say. I don't think "all good" and "omnibenevolent" are synonyms. After all, forgiveness is benevolent, but if God were all-forgiving, then he would never punish any person for any reason. Nobody's sin would ever be held against them. But that were the case, then God would never express any wrath at all toward sin. And if he never expressed any wrath at all toward sin, then he wouldn't be all good.

Was kinda ify here until I remembered the verse that says God won't forgive those who blaspheme His Spirit.. So yea I see what your saying and would agree with you too on everything you said.. God is vengeful and full of wrath and is a jealous God.. And sin must be punished.. So yea good point here..

"God is vengeful and full of wrath and is a jealous God.. And sin must be punished.. So yea good point here.."

How can this be compatible with omnibenevolence? What you just described is a petty, and childish God. Even humans I know can rise above jealousy..This is the best humans can come up with?


Lol, it petty and childish for you to think such a thing. Humans don't rise above jealousy. They either aren't jealous about everything, lie about it, or try to rise above by putting another below themself.

God is righteous in his jealousy.
: 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.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:51:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Apeiron, you're dead wrong about Christianity being the only religion to offer a way to salvation. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Sikhism all do this. In fact, the only major religion that does not, to my knowledge, offer salvation, is Judaism. Even the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Egyptians had differential afterlives in which the virtuous were rewarded and the evil were punished. The evidence is splashed all over Greek literature and all over Egyptian pyramids. The medieval Christians liked Virgil for this reason; the believed that his Aeneid was a predecessor to Christian thought and accurate from a pagan mindset, which is why Dante selected him to be the guide in The Inferno.

God isn't omnibenevolent, or else suffering wouldn't exist. People wouldn't starve to death, for example, if God was omnibenevolent. "The greater good" argument is meaningless if God is omnipotent and is not constrained to follow a certain path.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:53:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, I'm absolutely shocked that a theology student wouldn't know that other religions offer salvation and rewards in paradise. What do you think attracts people to them, lol?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 7:58:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 7:13:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2013 7:09:04 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

Ohhh I see what you're saying. But as you pointed out in your debate with PCP, Gods wrath is good. So.. would you say he's just not omnibenevolent in the sense that most people think?

Yes, that's what I would say. I don't think "all good" and "omnibenevolent" are synonyms. After all, forgiveness is benevolent, but if God were all-forgiving, then he would never punish any person for any reason. Nobody's sin would ever be held against them. But that were the case, then God would never express any wrath at all toward sin. And if he never expressed any wrath at all toward sin, then he wouldn't be all good.

Sin might be a precondition for forgiveness but not for moral goodness as a whole.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 8:09:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 6:52:05 PM, philochristos wrote:


To be benevolent is to do good to somebody. To be omnibenevolent (at least the way most folks seems to define it) is to do as much good as possible to as many people as possible. So if there's even one person who God sends to hell, then God isn't omnibenevolent. I don't think the Bible teaches that he is.

Finally something I we can have a debate about! ... It doesn't seem obvious that benevolence is contingent upon humans or upon the condition that they may sin. at most I can see benevolence being contingent upon two or more persons in a unity of sorts (I've heard three's a crowd, but that's a hopeless argument for the trinity).

Benevolence is a personal quality of kindliness, other-orientedness, etc. I don't see how that's dependent upon God's not sending someone to hell in the name of his justice either. (Hell, maximal justice?)


I think the mistake a lot of people make is in thinking you can stick an "omni" or an "all" in front of any of God's attributes and arrive at sound theology. But that's absurd. God is wrathful, but that doesn't mean he's omniwrathful. God is also benevolent, but that doesn't mean he's omnibenevolent.

Wrath flows from justice, doesn't it? .. Am I right in saying your reservations about the "omni" tags are due to your reservations of Anselm's famous argument?

... If I'm right, then I demand you change your profile picture to a smily face. Since that hat can't logically be worn without jubilance.