Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence for God's benevolence ?

Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 5:57:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have long wondered why people should praise or worship God (as sceptics are being told), or even loved. The reasons seem to fall in two categories :
- God deserves it
- It is in people's own interest

I would like investigate whether God deserves to be praised, worshipped or loved.

One reason why God would deserve praise is that he is supposed to have praiseworthy attributes, like holiness, righteousness, mercy and compassion.
The problem is that these attributes are subjective. There is no way to establish whether someone or some behaviour is merciful, other than by forming an opinion or asking someone else. The following is typical with righteousness : Christians describe God doing something evil and then they call it righteous, which illustrates that righteousness is just an opinion.

So, I will assume that all these attributes can be summarized in only one moral attribute, often referred to as perfectly loving, or perfectly good. That is also vague or subjective, so I prefer the concept omnibenevolence, which I define as follows :

Omnibenevolence is the unimpaired desire to maximize the well-being of the exterior world.

I am assuming here that there is objective morality. If there is no objective morality, then God's morality would be as much a reason to praise him as it would be to loath him. It would just depend on what opinion you have of God and any opinion would be just as valid as its opposite.

I don't really have a definition for benevolence (moral goodness), but I think it must involve the following :

- the interior world : I, me, the self
- the exterior world : the rest of the world, everything but the interior world
- It is possible to separate the world in parts belonging to the interior and parts belonging to the exterior world.
- The postulate : There is quantifiable property called well-being that has intrinsic value.
- Morality is a derived, quantifiable, emergent property attributable to agents and behaviours. God is an agent.
- Agents have goals / aims / objectives / intentions.
An agent is benevolent if its morality is positive. It is malevolent if its morality is negative.
- An entity with positive well-being is well. An entity with negative well-being is ill (it has ill-being).
- An agent is benevolent if it places more importance on increasing the well-being of the exterior world than on increasing its own well-being (i.e. the well-being of the exterior world has priority).

Notice that by that definition, most life-forms, including most humans, are malevolent. Notice also that morality can be made a two-dimensional property, i.e. consisting of two quantities, since there two worlds one can have intentions for.

As far as I can see, only the postulate is controversial. However, I haven't seen anyone yet present a better alternative. Morality based on God cannot be objective without defining objective such that something depending on God can still be objective. You could as well base objective morality on Adolf Hitler in that case and be benevolent for killing Jews.

So, is God benevolent ? According to the Problem of Evil, he isn't, but Christians have answers to it. (I am talking about Christianity because that is where my experience lies). Let's for the sake of the argument assume that those answers show that the PoE is not a compelling argument, that is, despite of all the evil in the world, God could still be benevolent.

If the PoE doesn't work, what evidence do we have then about God's morality ? He could still be malevolent. So in order to have objective reason to praise God for his benevolence, we would need evidence that he is benevolent.

These are the arguments for God's benevolence I can think of :

1) The Bible says so
2) The good in the world
3) Good miracles
4) Personal experience
5) Heaven
6) Ontological arguments
7) The moral argument

1) First, the Bible is unreliable and difficult to interpret. Second, the Bible also provides evidence for God's malevolence as he is described doing things that seem to favour the world's ill-being. The Bible is basically describing God's malevolent behaviour and calling it benevolent, just as one could call Adolf Hitler righteous for killing Jews.

2) That is the Problem of Good argument. The problem is that the arguments used to diffuse the PoE are usually also 'effective' against the PoG, e.g. anti-theodicies. So if we dismiss the former argument, we should also dismiss the latter.

3) Miracles only happen outside the field of science and there is no evidence they would have a significant positive impact on the world's well-being. In addition, there are also many paranormal events that seem at odds with Christianity, for example those associated with other religions or with aliens.

4) Religious personal experience is mysticism and falls outside the realm of science. The personal experience can scientifically studied, but it cannot be scientifically established what its cause is. In addition, adherents to other religions can also have religious experiences. Moreover, science has demonstrated that religious experiences are possible without a god. Furthermore, an evil god could also generate a positive religious experience.

5) The problem with Heaven is the lack of evidence. It looks like a promise that is used as a carrot. Why give people something if you can get what you want with promises alone ? Moreover, according to Christian doctrine, God is offering a trade, not a gift. In addition, there is Hell. Hell may be useful to keep people in line but it would be evidence for God's malevolence.

6) Ontological arguments presented by theists 'prove' the existence of a good god, but I haven't seen any yet that is sound. They can usually be parodied to 'prove' the existence of other absurd things, like an evil god.

7) The moral argument goes :
a) If God doesn't exist, there is no objective morality.
b) There is objective morality.
c) Therefore God exists.
I think discussing that would lead us too far. The argument is unsound and I am willing to show that in a formal debate. I think the Euthyphro dilemma successfully challenges an objective God-based morality. In addition, I already introduced an objective morality of my own.

I have seen some crazy arguments as well, but when challenged, the Christians who presented them declined to defend them.

So, unless I missed something, we don't have conclusive evidence that God is benevolent, let alone omnibenevolent. Why then would God deserve to be praised, worshipped or loved ?
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 6:57:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I find Stephen Law's evil God challenge compelling enough to demonstrate that it's impossible to demonstrate the existance of an omnibenevolent God, as the same arguments can be flipped for an omnimalevolent God.

Personally I don't find any of the theodicies for the PoE at all convincing, the earth is nothing like what I would expect from an all good intervening God.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 6:59:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The answer is quite simple.

They believe it because they have had it drummed into them for as long as they can remember. Even the converts can't remember what was before. The indoctrination has been copied by the Nth Koreans but they are well short of the perfection.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:10:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 6:57:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
I find Stephen Law's evil God challenge compelling enough to demonstrate that it's impossible to demonstrate the existance of an omnibenevolent God, as the same arguments can be flipped for an omnimalevolent God.

Personally I don't find any of the theodicies for the PoE at all convincing, the earth is nothing like what I would expect from an all good intervening God.

haha. I'm not an Omni-physicist expert. But what I do think I know about physics leads me to assert that the earth is not what I would expect if it were made by an Omni-physicist expert. That is your critical thinking at work. Brilliant.

An Omni-physicist expert would be a being that knows everything about physics of reality.

Thanks for admitting you are not omnibenevolent. Then asserting that if you imagined what an omnibenevolent being would do, It is not the world you see around you.

And in Atheist fashion you consider that objective evidence to support a non-claim of lacking believe in God.

What you imagine should happen, imagining from a perspective you clearly are not capable of understanding, does not match the facts of this real world so..

therefore it is NOT your imagination that could be wrong.

It is that God is wrong.

Yeah I got it Atheist genius at work.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:36:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 5:57:36 AM, Amoranemix wrote:

So, unless I missed something, we don't have conclusive evidence that God is benevolent, let alone omnibenevolent. Why then would God deserve to be praised, worshipped or loved ?

If, like most people, your definition of "God" is based upon the idea that God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists, then existence, itself, stands as evidence of God's benevolence.

If you do not accept the idea of God being the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists, then you're asking the wrong people the wrong question.

Evidence that God is benevolent:

I exist. Everything I love and care about, exists. I have been given the gift of being, and the gift of being aware of my being, so that I can appreciate my own being, as well as that of everything and everyone else.

I have also been given the gift of free will regarding my existence. I can choose to cease existing. And I can choose not to appreciate the existence of anything and anyone else. However, should I make such choices, they will be examples of MY malevolence, and not God's.

Even the fact that our existence is of a limited duration could very easily be seen as a benevolent gift, as perpetual existence would eventually become a living hell.

If you look for the evidence of divine benevolence, you will find everywhere you turn. But if you look for reasons to reject and dismiss it, you will find them, too. Because the gifts are yours to do with as you choose. And to recognize and appreciate, or not.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:39:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 6:57:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
I find Stephen Law's evil God challenge compelling enough to demonstrate that it's impossible to demonstrate the existance of an omnibenevolent God, as the same arguments can be flipped for an omnimalevolent God.

Personally I don't find any of the theodicies for the PoE at all convincing, the earth is nothing like what I would expect from an all good intervening God.

haha. I'm not an Omni-physicist expert. But what I do think I know about physics leads me to assert that the earth is not what I would expect if it were made by an Omni-physicist expert. That is your critical thinking at work. Brilliant.

An Omni-physicist expert would be a being that knows everything about physics of reality.

Thanks for admitting you are not omnibenevolent. Then asserting that if you imagined what an omnibenevolent being would do, It is not the world you see around you.

And in Atheist fashion you consider that objective evidence to support a non-claim of lacking believe in God.

What you imagine should happen, imagining from a perspective you clearly are not capable of understanding, does not match the facts of this real world so..

therefore it is NOT your imagination that could be wrong.

It is that God is wrong.

Yeah I got it Atheist genius at work.

F*ck you, you condescending f*ggot?

K? Thxbye.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:43:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:39:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 6:57:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
I find Stephen Law's evil God challenge compelling enough to demonstrate that it's impossible to demonstrate the existance of an omnibenevolent God, as the same arguments can be flipped for an omnimalevolent God.

Personally I don't find any of the theodicies for the PoE at all convincing, the earth is nothing like what I would expect from an all good intervening God.

haha. I'm not an Omni-physicist expert. But what I do think I know about physics leads me to assert that the earth is not what I would expect if it were made by an Omni-physicist expert. That is your critical thinking at work. Brilliant.

An Omni-physicist expert would be a being that knows everything about physics of reality.

Thanks for admitting you are not omnibenevolent. Then asserting that if you imagined what an omnibenevolent being would do, It is not the world you see around you.

And in Atheist fashion you consider that objective evidence to support a non-claim of lacking believe in God.

What you imagine should happen, imagining from a perspective you clearly are not capable of understanding, does not match the facts of this real world so..

therefore it is NOT your imagination that could be wrong.

It is that God is wrong.

Yeah I got it Atheist genius at work.

F*ck you, you condescending f*ggot?

K? Thxbye.

Clap Clap great rebuttal. I expose your premises do not logically follow the conclusion and your response is ad hominem.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:47:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:43:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:39:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 6:57:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
I find Stephen Law's evil God challenge compelling enough to demonstrate that it's impossible to demonstrate the existance of an omnibenevolent God, as the same arguments can be flipped for an omnimalevolent God.

Personally I don't find any of the theodicies for the PoE at all convincing, the earth is nothing like what I would expect from an all good intervening God.

haha. I'm not an Omni-physicist expert. But what I do think I know about physics leads me to assert that the earth is not what I would expect if it were made by an Omni-physicist expert. That is your critical thinking at work. Brilliant.

An Omni-physicist expert would be a being that knows everything about physics of reality.

Thanks for admitting you are not omnibenevolent. Then asserting that if you imagined what an omnibenevolent being would do, It is not the world you see around you.

And in Atheist fashion you consider that objective evidence to support a non-claim of lacking believe in God.

What you imagine should happen, imagining from a perspective you clearly are not capable of understanding, does not match the facts of this real world so..

therefore it is NOT your imagination that could be wrong.

It is that God is wrong.

Yeah I got it Atheist genius at work.

F*ck you, you condescending f*ggot?

K? Thxbye.

Clap Clap great rebuttal. I expose your premises do not logically follow the conclusion and your response is ad hominem.

Actually it's not ad homenum. It's just a personal insult.

I don't see your argument worth responding to, and I never made an argument either, I only stated my opinion on other arguments.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:48:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:43:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:39:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 6:57:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
I find Stephen Law's evil God challenge compelling enough to demonstrate that it's impossible to demonstrate the existance of an omnibenevolent God, as the same arguments can be flipped for an omnimalevolent God.

Personally I don't find any of the theodicies for the PoE at all convincing, the earth is nothing like what I would expect from an all good intervening God.

haha. I'm not an Omni-physicist expert. But what I do think I know about physics leads me to assert that the earth is not what I would expect if it were made by an Omni-physicist expert. That is your critical thinking at work. Brilliant.

An Omni-physicist expert would be a being that knows everything about physics of reality.

Thanks for admitting you are not omnibenevolent. Then asserting that if you imagined what an omnibenevolent being would do, It is not the world you see around you.

And in Atheist fashion you consider that objective evidence to support a non-claim of lacking believe in God.

What you imagine should happen, imagining from a perspective you clearly are not capable of understanding, does not match the facts of this real world so..

therefore it is NOT your imagination that could be wrong.

It is that God is wrong.

Yeah I got it Atheist genius at work.

F*ck you, you condescending f*ggot?

K? Thxbye.

Clap Clap great rebuttal. I expose your premises do not logically follow the conclusion and your response is ad hominem.

correction-

Clap Clap great rebuttal. I expose your premises do not logically "lead to" the conclusion and your response is ad hominem.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:06:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:48:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:43:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:39:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 6:57:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
I find Stephen Law's evil God challenge compelling enough to demonstrate that it's impossible to demonstrate the existance of an omnibenevolent God, as the same arguments can be flipped for an omnimalevolent God.

Personally I don't find any of the theodicies for the PoE at all convincing, the earth is nothing like what I would expect from an all good intervening God.

haha. I'm not an Omni-physicist expert. But what I do think I know about physics leads me to assert that the earth is not what I would expect if it were made by an Omni-physicist expert. That is your critical thinking at work. Brilliant.

An Omni-physicist expert would be a being that knows everything about physics of reality.

Thanks for admitting you are not omnibenevolent. Then asserting that if you byimagined what an omnibenevolent being would do, It is not the world you see around you.

And in Atheist fashion you consider that objective evidence to support a non-claim of lacking believe in God.

What you imagine should happen, imagining from a perspective you clearly are not capable of understanding, does not match the facts of this real world so..

therefore it is NOT your imagination that could be wrong.

It is that God is wrong.

Yeah I got it Atheist genius at work.

F*ck you, you condescending f*ggot?

K? Thxbye.

Clap Clap great rebuttal. I expose your premises do not logically follow the conclusion and your response is ad hominem.

correction-

Clap Clap great rebuttal. I expose your premises do not logically "lead to" the conclusion and your response is ad hominem.

None-the-less, warranted in your case. You're of the "home team football" mentality. Logic and objective evidence mean nothing to you. Explained objective evidence means nothing to you. You thrive on the hatred of difference. If anyone believes, thinks, eats, sleeps, or breathes differently than you, they receive your instant hatred and the results of your attempts to eradicate them. You perpetuate an inability to even grasp arguments contrary to your own, because from the moment you encounter them, you label them false, lies, evil and wrong, in your mind. And every subsequent encounter is completely tainted by your rigid hatred and refusal to even consider ideas contrary to what you have initially adopted. Your every attempt at debate is over shadowed by your mindless hatred.

If you'd take the time to seek a point of objectivity and take a fresh look, you'd find that atheism is built entirely on logic and the concepts upon which you actually subsist within reality. Religion is based on concepts inseparable from childish fairytales and the ignorance common to the eras from which they first began to arise.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:27:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 3:06:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:48:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:43:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:39:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 6:57:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
I find Stephen Law's evil God challenge compelling enough to demonstrate that it's impossible to demonstrate the existance of an omnibenevolent God, as the same arguments can be flipped for an omnimalevolent God.

Personally I don't find any of the theodicies for the PoE at all convincing, the earth is nothing like what I would expect from an all good intervening God.

haha. I'm not an Omni-physicist expert. But what I do think I know about physics leads me to assert that the earth is not what I would expect if it were made by an Omni-physicist expert. That is your critical thinking at work. Brilliant.

An Omni-physicist expert would be a being that knows everything about physics of reality.

Thanks for admitting you are not omnibenevolent. Then asserting that if you byimagined what an omnibenevolent being would do, It is not the world you see around you.

And in Atheist fashion you consider that objective evidence to support a non-claim of lacking believe in God.

What you imagine should happen, imagining from a perspective you clearly are not capable of understanding, does not match the facts of this real world so..

therefore it is NOT your imagination that could be wrong.

It is that God is wrong.

Yeah I got it Atheist genius at work.

F*ck you, you condescending f*ggot?

K? Thxbye.

Clap Clap great rebuttal. I expose your premises do not logically follow the conclusion and your response is ad hominem.

correction-

Clap Clap great rebuttal. I expose your premises do not logically "lead to" the conclusion and your response is ad hominem.

None-the-less, warranted in your case. You're of the "home team football" mentality. Logic and objective evidence mean nothing to you. Explained objective evidence means nothing to you. You thrive on the hatred of difference. If anyone believes, thinks, eats, sleeps, or breathes differently than you, they receive your instant hatred and the results of your attempts to eradicate them. You perpetuate an inability to even grasp arguments contrary to your own, because from the moment you encounter them, you label them false, lies, evil and wrong, in your mind. And every subsequent encounter is completely tainted by your rigid hatred and refusal to even consider ideas contrary to what you have initially adopted. Your every attempt at debate is over shadowed by your mindless hatred.

If you'd take the time to seek a point of objectivity and take a fresh look, you'd find that atheism is built entirely on logic and the concepts upon which you actually subsist within reality. Religion is based on concepts inseparable from childish fairytales and the ignorance common to the eras from which they first began to arise.

You are not omnibenevolent. Your own actions are not always for the greatest good possible. You do not have experience in thinking like an omnibenevolent being.

So you imagine if you were an omnibenevolent God, you would make the world in a particular way.

Because the world is not that particular way, then an omnibenevolent God does not exist.

How do you know this world is not the best possible good? You don't. To discern whether it does or not would require an intelligence that encompasses all possible future results and all present variables. Not you or Envisage or anyone can gain an accurate representation of the "best possible good" quality through a priori or a posteriori means of knowledge. So from a position of "no possible knowledge" of "best possible good" you discern the world is not the result of a omnibenevolent God. This is a conclusion based on your lack of knowledge, bolstered by what you imagine to be "the best", and then applied to the real world.

When investigating something, one should gather what information they have. And in the process of formulating a hypothesis, it many times results in imagining the mechanisms of the hypothesis that describe the results of the observations, aka information gathered.

The more assumptions the hypothesis includes the less likely it accounts for the observations. You have NO way of determining what a omnibenevolent action is. Making your hypothesis of what an omnibenevolent god ruled world pure nothing but assumption.

Making it less likely to accurately account for the real world.

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT.

That is so basic to every kind of logic, philosophy, or type of reasoning, it completely astounds me how you continue to equate such a fallacy to actually being core to logical inquiry.

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT. <- negative version.

You can ONLY know something when "a priori" OR "a posteriori" knowledge are PRESENT. <- positive version.

It is not that you and envisage disagree with my conclusions, or that I did not come to the same conclusion as you 2 have. I disagree with calling "stupidity" a type of critical thinking.
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:36:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's very simple, really.
Everything God does is for ULTIMATE GOOD.

Ever since the Fall of Man, in the Garden of Eden, EVERYTHING in this world has been under the control and influence of Satan.

HOWEVER--
And this is a VERY IMPORTANT "HOWEVER"....

SATAN is UNDER the CONTROL of GOD.

He's like a dog on a leash, and can only go as far as God allows him (i.e. the book of Job, or the demons and the swine in Matthew, Chapter 8).

And God PURPOSED the Fall, and the rule of Satan over the things of this world, to bring GLORY to HIMSELF--which is the ultimate good.

The Bible uses the Pharaoh of Egypt as a typological picture of Satan ruling over the things of this world.
God sent the Israelites, who were a typological picture of God's elect, into bondage under Pharaoh, in Egypt.
And God PURPOSED all this to bring glory to himself, by the REDEMPTION of the Israelites from their bondage.

So, this whole typological picture reveals God's purpose in allowing sin and evil to enter in, that he might REDEEM his elect, for his own glory.

(Read Romans, Chapter 9 for more information about this.)

Now, of course, NO ONE is REALLY going to AGREE that the ULTIMATE GOOD is the GLORY of GOD, unless they have God's SPIRIT.
The UNSAVED PERSON who does NOT have the SPIRIT of GOD ASSUMES that what HE WANTS is more important than God's glory.
And most of all, he HATES God and BLAMES God for his own sin, and for being subject to the law of God and God's will.

The NATURAL PERSON thinks God is a MONSTER for allowing all this evil, and does not BELIEVE that it's for ultimate good.
The Natural Person HATES GOD and thinks God is UNJUST. And he will NEVER agree with God on these things.

BUT BELIEVERS, God's ELECT, those to whom God has GIVEN his SPIRIT, they BELIEVE and AGREE with GOD.
They see the WISDOM and RIGHTEOUSNESS in ALL that God does, and they praise him and worship his name.

The FACT is, UNLESS you have the SPIRIT of GOD, you will HATE God and HATE what he's done.
But if God gives you his Spirit, you will confess that he's GOOD, and that EVERYTHING he DOES is GOOD.

The ULTIMATE EXAMPLE of this principle is the MURDER of CHRIST.
GOD PURPOSED it for his own glory, and the GOOD of his people.

The people who murdered him are still guilty. THEY purposed it for EVIL. But God USED it for the ULTIMATE GOOD.

And so, there's NO QUESTION that God is OMNIBENEVOLENT, it's just that what the Natural Person thinks is "good" is really "evil."

Listen,
One example, from the Scriptures, of a man who believed God, was Joseph, who had a bunch of brothers.
And these brothers were jealous of Joseph, and so they sold him into slavery in Egypt. But GOD made it so that Joseph would PROSPER in Egypt.
And, in time, there was a famine, and JOSEPH was now RULER over Egypt, and had the power to give food to those in need.
And Joseph gave food to his brothers, the same ones who had maliciously sold him into slavery.
And Joseph did have the power to condemn them for their evil deed, but INSTEAD he blessed them and took care of them.
And he said to them: "
'You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don"t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.' And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them." (Genesis 50:20-21)

Now, THAT is a typological picture of the LORD JESUS CHRIST!
He has the RIGHT to CONDEMN or FORGIVE!

And anyone who COMES to HIM for FORGIVENESS of THEIR SINS WILL RECEIVE MERCY!
But whoever does NOT COME to HIM for FORGIVENESS will be CONDEMNED.

For "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
I pray you, in Christ's stead, be reconciled to God.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:48:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 3:27:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 3:06:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:48:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:43:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:39:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 6:57:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
I find Stephen Law's evil God challenge compelling enough to demonstrate that it's impossible to demonstrate the existance of an omnibenevolent God, as the same arguments can be flipped for an omnimalevolent God.

Personally I don't find any of the theodicies for the PoE at all convincing, the earth is nothing like what I would expect from an all good intervening God.

haha. I'm not an Omni-physicist expert. But what I do think I know about physics leads me to assert that the earth is not what I would expect if it were made by an Omni-physicist expert. That is your critical thinking at work. Brilliant.

An Omni-physicist expert would be a being that knows everything about physics of reality.

Thanks for admitting you are not omnibenevolent. Then asserting that if you byimagined what an omnibenevolent being would do, It is not the world you see around you.

And in Atheist fashion you consider that objective evidence to support a non-claim of lacking believe in God.

What you imagine should happen, imagining from a perspective you clearly are not capable of understanding, does not match the facts of this real world so..

therefore it is NOT your imagination that could be wrong.

It is that God is wrong.

Yeah I got it Atheist genius at work.

F*ck you, you condescending f*ggot?

K? Thxbye.

Clap Clap great rebuttal. I expose your premises do not logically follow the conclusion and your response is ad hominem.

correction-

Clap Clap great rebuttal. I expose your premises do not logically "lead to" the conclusion and your response is ad hominem.

None-the-less, warranted in your case. You're of the "home team football" mentality. Logic and objective evidence mean nothing to you. Explained objective evidence means nothing to you. You thrive on the hatred of difference. If anyone believes, thinks, eats, sleeps, or breathes differently than you, they receive your instant hatred and the results of your attempts to eradicate them. You perpetuate an inability to even grasp arguments contrary to your own, because from the moment you encounter them, you label them false, lies, evil and wrong, in your mind. And every subsequent encounter is completely tainted by your rigid hatred and refusal to even consider ideas contrary to what you have initially adopted. Your every attempt at debate is over shadowed by your mindless hatred.

If you'd take the time to seek a point of objectivity and take a fresh look, you'd find that atheism is built entirely on logic and the concepts upon which you actually subsist within reality. Religion is based on concepts inseparable from childish fairytales and the ignorance common to the eras from which they first began to arise.

You are not omnibenevolent. Your own actions are not always for the greatest good possible. You do not have experience in thinking like an omnibenevolent being.

So you imagine if you were an omnibenevolent God, you would make the world in a particular way.

Because the world is not that particular way, then an omnibenevolent God does not exist.

How do you know this world is not the best possible good? You don't. To discern whether it does or not would require an intelligence that encompasses all possible future results and all present variables. Not you or Envisage or anyone can gain an accurate representation of the "best possible good" quality through a priori or a posteriori means of knowledge. So from a position of "no possible knowledge" of "best possible good" you discern the world is not the result of a omnibenevolent God. This is a conclusion based on your lack of knowledge, bolstered by what you imagine to be "the best", and then applied to the real world.

When investigating something, one should gather what information they have. And in the process of formulating a hypothesis, it many times results in imagining the mechanisms of the hypothesis that describe the results of the observations, aka information gathered.

The more assumptions the hypothesis includes the less likely it accounts for the observations. You have NO way of determining what a omnibenevolent action is. Making your hypothesis of what an omnibenevolent god ruled world pure nothing but assumption.

Making it less likely to accurately account for the real world.

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT.

That is so basic to every kind of logic, philosophy, or type of reasoning, it completely astounds me how you continue to equate such a fallacy to actually being core to logical inquiry.

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT. <- negative version.

You can ONLY know something when "a priori" OR "a posteriori" knowledge are PRESENT. <- positive version.

It is not that you and envisage disagree with my conclusions, or that I did not come to the same conclusion as you 2 have. I disagree with calling "stupidity" a type of critical thinking.

That's right; spew that hatred. After all, I'm not just your enemy (in your rigid mind), by the fact that I'm an atheists. I'm also an anti-theist. I've allowed myself to see the reality behind religion and the way it promotes the rotting of the human mind. But it gets even worse, I was a theist for the first 33-years of my life - likely as long, or longer, than you've even been around.

So spew that hatred and demonstrate what it is to be so rigidly locked into an idea, that one can no longer understand that it's wrong to slaughter children to rape women, to keep slaves, and to practice racism and prejudice. Your God of the Bible promotes all of these actions and yet... your mind is so rigidly frozen, that you can't conceive of how utterly malevolent such actions are. So spew that hatred as your religion demands. It's an entire belief system assembled from hatred, bigotry, persecution and "justified" rage, anger, loathing and killing. Continue to show us what your religion really teaches under that paper-thin coating of rhetorical "love and tolerance".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:51:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 3:36:35 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
It's very simple, really.
Everything God does is for ULTIMATE GOOD.

A very easy comment to make when one considers that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that God has ever done anything.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:55:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 3:27:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 3:06:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
None-the-less, warranted in your case. You're of the "home team football" mentality. Logic and objective evidence mean nothing to you. Explained objective evidence means nothing to you. You thrive on the hatred of difference. If anyone believes, thinks, eats, sleeps, or breathes differently than you, they receive your instant hatred and the results of your attempts to eradicate them. You perpetuate an inability to even grasp arguments contrary to your own, because from the moment you encounter them, you label them false, lies, evil and wrong, in your mind. And every subsequent encounter is completely tainted by your rigid hatred and refusal to even consider ideas contrary to what you have initially adopted. Your every attempt at debate is over shadowed by your mindless hatred.

If you'd take the time to seek a point of objectivity and take a fresh look, you'd find that atheism is built entirely on logic and the concepts upon which you actually subsist within reality. Religion is based on concepts inseparable from childish fairytales and the ignorance common to the eras from which they first began to arise.

You are not omnibenevolent. Your own actions are not always for the greatest good possible. You do not have experience in thinking like an omnibenevolent being.
How do you know I'm not omnibenevolent? Have you ever experienced thinking like an omnibenevolent being? You're contradicting yourself in stating that I can't evaluate whether or not God is an omnibenevolent being, because I'm not one, while at the same time, you're not an omnibenevolent being, but judging me not to be omnibenevolent.

If one must be omnibenevolent in order to see malevolence (which is essentially your argument), then none of us possesses any capacity to know anything about benevolence or malevolence. I think you just puked up the forbidden fruit, all over your argument.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 4:08:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 3:55:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/12/2014 3:27:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 3:06:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
None-the-less, warranted in your case. You're of the "home team football" mentality. Logic and objective evidence mean nothing to you. Explained objective evidence means nothing to you. You thrive on the hatred of difference. If anyone believes, thinks, eats, sleeps, or breathes differently than you, they receive your instant hatred and the results of your attempts to eradicate them. You perpetuate an inability to even grasp arguments contrary to your own, because from the moment you encounter them, you label them false, lies, evil and wrong, in your mind. And every subsequent encounter is completely tainted by your rigid hatred and refusal to even consider ideas contrary to what you have initially adopted. Your every attempt at debate is over shadowed by your mindless hatred.

If you'd take the time to seek a point of objectivity and take a fresh look, you'd find that atheism is built entirely on logic and the concepts upon which you actually subsist within reality. Religion is based on concepts inseparable from childish fairytales and the ignorance common to the eras from which they first began to arise.

You are not omnibenevolent. Your own actions are not always for the greatest good possible. You do not have experience in thinking like an omnibenevolent being.
How do you know I'm not omnibenevolent? Have you ever experienced thinking like an omnibenevolent being? You're contradicting yourself in stating that I can't evaluate whether or not God is an omnibenevolent being, because I'm not one, while at the same time, you're not an omnibenevolent being, but judging me not to be omnibenevolent.


Because it is a logical default position to assume that you are a living thinking person just like. This because you and I are humans (assuming you are human). And humans are not omnibenevolent.

If you are claiming you omnibenevolent you have to support that claim and try to convince me so, because I am challenging that you not. In fact I am denying it with the BOP or justification I presented in the last paragraph.

If one must be omnibenevolent in order to see malevolence (which is essentially your argument), then none of us possesses any capacity to know anything about benevolence or malevolence. I think you just puked up the forbidden fruit, all over your argument.

Again why my speech is accusatory of you is because:

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT.

That is so basic to every kind of logic, philosophy, or type of reasoning, it completely astounds me how you continue to equate such a fallacy to actually being core to logical inquiry.

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT. <- negative version.

You can ONLY know something when "a priori" OR "a posteriori" knowledge are PRESENT. <- positive version.

It is not that you and envisage disagree with my conclusions, or that I did not come to the same conclusion as you 2 have. I disagree with calling "stupidity" a type of critical thinking. It is repulsive.

I haven't said my perception of God is of the bible god, or of a omnibenevolent god, or of a malevolence god. I do think the question is unanswerable by human beings.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 4:08:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 3:27:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

So you imagine if you were an omnibenevolent God, you would make the world in a particular way.
I wouldn't have encouraged anyone to kill their own children.
I wouldn't have promoted people to go to war.
I wouldn't suggest that unmarried raped women should be forced to marry their rapists.
I wouldn't have told anyone it was okay to engage in slavery or to beat their slaves to death - as long as it took a few days for them to die.
I wouldn't have attempted to wipe out all but eight of the people on the planet and take all but a tiny sample of the innocent animals with them.
I wouldn't have encouraged genocide.
I wouldn't have told people that by being complicit in the brutal injustice of punishing the innocent, that they could become closer to me.
I would have been able to either create reasonable laws, or follow the laws of necessity, rather than creating laws and then circumventing them through injustice, cruelty and bloodshed.

Because the world is not that particular way, then an omnibenevolent God does not exist.
Correct.
That is the very method by which benevolence and malevolence are judged, Mhykiel! Can you tell that it's malevolent for a large muscular man to pistol whip an old lady, rifle through her purse, steal her credit cards, cash and valuables, and then rape her and abandon her there to die?
Is there any way - even in your sick, distorted, theist mind - that you can find that to be benevolent?

Of course, according to you, if we're not omnibenevolent ourselves, then we have no experience from which to judge. Do you honestly believe that? Because if you do, then you should be fighting all human attempts to make the world a better place. You should be opening the doors to our prisons, objecting to any form of human "justice system", refusing to recognize the authority of police and you should stop judging atheists to be worse than theists. But you don't.

Don't you see? You don't believe your own arguments. You only use them as a shield to prevent yourself from seeing the counter-arguments.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 4:13:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 3:27:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT.

That is so basic to every kind of logic, philosophy, or type of reasoning, it completely astounds me how you continue to equate such a fallacy to actually being core to logical inquiry.

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT. <- negative version.

You can ONLY know something when "a priori" OR "a posteriori" knowledge are PRESENT. <- positive version.

It is not that you and envisage disagree with my conclusions, or that I did not come to the same conclusion as you 2 have. I disagree with calling "stupidity" a type of critical thinking.

Then you - Mhykiel - cannot know if God is absolutely good, or of the most evil, vile and malevolent character possible.
If you actually believe what you're saying, then you can't possibly believe that you could know whether God is benevolent, or malevolent beyond all human comprehension.

When the argument you're presenting devours the very argument you're presenting, you're not in a position to call anyone "stupid", except yourself.

Either swallow your own bullcrap, or stop spreading it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 4:19:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 4:08:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I haven't said my perception of God is of the bible god,
You can hear the buzzzzz in the ratchet of my rear hub when I back-pedal my bicycle that quickly.

... or of a omnibenevolent god, or of a malevolence god. I do think the question is unanswerable by human beings.

Then why would you adhere to anything proposed to have been presented by God? You might be joining the team of the most malevolent character in the universe, or "beyond". And yet, while you claim it's unanswerable, you still demonstrate your hatred of those who not only don't follow this proposed entity of unknowable character, but disbelieve that he even exists.

If you can't know whether God is malevolent or benevolent, isn't neutrality the safer position?

Think hard, little one.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 4:34:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 4:19:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/12/2014 4:08:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I haven't said my perception of God is of the bible god,
You can hear the buzzzzz in the ratchet of my rear hub when I back-pedal my bicycle that quickly.

... or of a omnibenevolent god, or of a malevolence god. I do think the question is unanswerable by human beings.

Then why would you adhere to anything proposed to have been presented by God? You might be joining the team of the most malevolent character in the universe, or "beyond". And yet, while you claim it's unanswerable, you still demonstrate your hatred of those who not only don't follow this proposed entity of unknowable character, but disbelieve that he even exists.

If you can't know whether God is malevolent or benevolent, isn't neutrality the safer position?

Think hard, little one.

Wow that has a lot of generalizations. Not knowing if God's character is omnibenevolent or omnimalevolent is not an indication of not knowing any character of God.

As I said I do not accept an omnibenevelont god. The only argument I see for one is that evil is the absence of good. And God is lacking in nothing. God does not portray the absence of qualities. God is the absence of absent characteristics.

In my mind that could make god definable as omnibenevolent, but it is academic because it does not help any of us humans discern what omnibenevolent actions are.

Darkness is not anything. It is the absence of light. The light can be blue, green, white, x-ray, etc.. But darkness can only be the amount light does not penetrate a space.

So if Evil is the absence of Good. Then God would be all-good. It is reasoning to define something, but it helps not in discerning the something. Because we as humans have never observed, experienced, or can discern what "best possible good is".

Again actions and their results are not black and white. So if the result is "best possible good" then it infers the result may have some parts that are bad.

Can an all-good god perform an action that is MOSTLY good? If so then God can perform the best possible good. accepting and allowing the parts that are absent of good to accomplish an effect or result that is the best possible good.

But what is good? In the Bible God decides what is good. The Hebrew root for what is translated as "good" in English is functional. So God calls good what works for his goals. So God does what he does to accomplish his goals.

This is in harmony with how other intelligent beings act, how the world exists, the actions I attribute to God, and with God's nature.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 4:50:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 4:08:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Again why my speech is accusatory of you is because:

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT.

That is so basic to every kind of logic, philosophy, or type of reasoning, it completely astounds me how you continue to equate such a fallacy to actually being core to logical inquiry.

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT. <- negative version.

You can ONLY know something when "a priori" OR "a posteriori" knowledge are PRESENT. <- positive version.

Your problem here is as it often is; you don't grasp the very logic you're attempting to use. You've obviously read it and understand barely enough to know to what type of discussion it applies. That's why you presented it without even realizing that what it does is to destroy your entire argument. But as you've so thoroughly demonstrated here; you don't truly understand it. And you probably never will. Because you've labeled those who understand it as "evil", "wicked", "stupid" and immediately looked upon us as your enemy. And from that moment forth, you disable yourself from learning from us.

Here is the reality, Mhykiel. (And I know you'll reject it without consideration... as you always do.)
- There is no such thing as "good"
- There is no such thing as "evil"
- There is no such thing as benevolence without perspective.
- There is no such thing as malevolence without perspective.

All of these things are simply a matter of perspective. And while that is demonstrably factual, it's completely contrary to the Bible, and to most religions which arise from primitive feeble minds. And unfortunately, the majority of the human race still operates upon the feeble false premises of "good and evil". But once you understand that it's all just a matter of perspective, your silly "good vs evil" God concepts, stories and values, simply fall to rubble.

You're at a party and you meet two people; Gary and Steve. Both of them seem pretty cool at first. But as you engage them in conversation, you start to notice that Gary seems to carry a lot of prejudice. He doesn't seem to think men should ever listen to women, hates homosexuals, is clearly racist and laughs when someone mentioned the guy who was executed in prison the day before. Steve, on the other hand, doesn't seem to present these prejudices but there's something about him which makes you feel uneasy. Eventually, they start to exchange war stories and Gary immediately begins to beam as he talks about how he was one of the top bomber pilots in his Air Force division and he radiates joy as he discusses the thousands and thousands of people killed by the bombs he dropped. Even Steve seems to be a bit taken aback by his apparent joy at the death of others. But when you ask Steve if he has ever killed anyone, he openly tells you that he did. And it wasn't in a war. He admits to you that he killed a family of 10, but then tries to qualify his actions by telling you that he was drunk and he did it on a bet.

Can you tell me which of these two people are the most malevolent or the most benevolent?

Of course, according to the logic statements you presented, you'd have absolutely no idea. But I can tell you which is which, based upon the actions and behaviors they have conveyed.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 5:18:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 4:50:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/12/2014 4:08:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Again why my speech is accusatory of you is because:

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT.

That is so basic to every kind of logic, philosophy, or type of reasoning, it completely astounds me how you continue to equate such a fallacy to actually being core to logical inquiry.

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT. <- negative version.

You can ONLY know something when "a priori" OR "a posteriori" knowledge are PRESENT. <- positive version.

Your problem here is as it often is; you don't grasp the very logic you're attempting to use. You've obviously read it and understand barely enough to know to what type of discussion it applies. That's why you presented it without even realizing that what it does is to destroy your entire argument. But as you've so thoroughly demonstrated here; you don't truly understand it. And you probably never will. Because you've labeled those who understand it as "evil", "wicked", "stupid" and immediately looked upon us as your enemy. And from that moment forth, you disable yourself from learning from us.


Not so, after the hole is bored in my head, I'm converting to Atheism BECAUSE I have learned so much from you.

Here is the reality, Mhykiel. (And I know you'll reject it without consideration... as you always do.)

No rejecting something without consideration of the argument is an Atheist tactic. It's called the "default position"

- There is no such thing as "good"

Well I defined "good" as the accomplishment of God's will. That is within scope of this argument, where God's existence is not being debated. Just whether God is omnibenevolent or not. This again is an Atheist tactic diverting all arguments to the "God does not exist". I'm in agreement with you:: in a metaphysical world where god does not exist there would be no such thing as good.

- There is no such thing as "evil"

I actually already agree with you on this. The term "evil" is semantic. Like the words "nothing" or "impossible", they denote the absence or negation of things that are real.

- There is no such thing as benevolence without perspective.

My arguments were for omni-benevolence and if knowledge of omnibenevolent actions is possible. I say they aren't.

You changed the word here to be "benevolence" which does exist in human morality. And can Ethically be discerned between humans.

- There is no such thing as malevolence without perspective.


See above.

All of these things are simply a matter of perspective. And while that is demonstrably factual, it's completely contrary to the Bible, and to most religions which arise from primitive feeble minds. And unfortunately, the majority of the human race still operates upon the feeble false premises of "good and evil". But once you understand that it's all just a matter of perspective, your silly "good vs evil" God concepts, stories and values, simply fall to rubble.


I see my arguments may have been too long for your attention span. I was using a lot of words to support and establish what I was saying. I suppose I should just assert stuff without descriptions, when I become an Atheist. I digress:

I'm saying humans can not know if God is "good or evil" from our perspective. By definition God should have no absence in his character. So he is by definition all-good. Because Evil is the lack of good. But human perspective eliminates the ability to discern if the actions are "most possible good" and furthermore an all-good entity can perform an action or a secondary external state that is not completely good. not completely good would be where an action of "most possible good" would be categorized as.

You're at a party and you meet two people; Gary and Steve. Both of them seem pretty cool at first. But as you engage them in conversation, you start to notice that Gary seems to carry a lot of prejudice. He doesn't seem to think men should ever listen to women, hates homosexuals, is clearly racist and laughs when someone mentioned the guy who was executed in prison the day before. Steve, on the other hand, doesn't seem to present these prejudices but there's something about him which makes you feel uneasy. Eventually, they start to exchange war stories and Gary immediately begins to beam as he talks about how he was one of the top bomber pilots in his Air Force division and he radiates joy as he discusses the thousands and thousands of people killed by the bombs he dropped. Even Steve seems to be a bit taken aback by his apparent joy at the death of others. But when you ask Steve if he has ever killed anyone, he openly tells you that he did. And it wasn't in a war. He admits to you that he killed a family of 10, but then tries to qualify his actions by telling you that he was drunk and he did it on a bet.

Can you tell me which of these two people are the most malevolent or the most benevolent?


That is an interesting story.

Human perspective can not discern omni-benevolence. How does my claim of that, equate to you suggesting humans can not discern any benevolent, or in this case malevolent actions at all.

Since you like stories, You are at a party. You meet 2 people one Steve and the other Gary. Steve happens to be your boss. Gary is not. Gary goes on and on about how employment is bad. Gary goes on and on about the destruction of forests and habitats endangering wild life. Steve owns a logging company and mill. Steve donates the lumber to free housing projects to house people and is part of a restoration program to rotate through logging areas and also plant new trees.

Is your boss Steve, benevolent? Strange thing is Steve even agrees with Gary that some of those things at face value are wrong and destructive to well being.

Of course, according to the logic statements you presented, you'd have absolutely no idea. But I can tell you which is which, based upon the actions and behaviors they have conveyed.

Seeing how the human perspective of morality has created a system called law. And this man made system of Legality (often confused with Justice) is a system established by man made government. You are you asking me which is Legally wrong? your right I don't get it. You seem to confuse things and say they are equal.

Which is why in my story the difference between the characters i not legal but of ethical nature.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 5:25:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 4:34:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 4:19:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/12/2014 4:08:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I haven't said my perception of God is of the bible god,
You can hear the buzzzzz in the ratchet of my rear hub when I back-pedal my bicycle that quickly.

... or of a omnibenevolent god, or of a malevolence god. I do think the question is unanswerable by human beings.

Then why would you adhere to anything proposed to have been presented by God? You might be joining the team of the most malevolent character in the universe, or "beyond". And yet, while you claim it's unanswerable, you still demonstrate your hatred of those who not only don't follow this proposed entity of unknowable character, but disbelieve that he even exists.

If you can't know whether God is malevolent or benevolent, isn't neutrality the safer position?

Think hard, little one.

Wow that has a lot of generalizations.
What generalizations? Did I present anything more generalized than the claims you make regarding all atheists? Or is it only fair when you do it?

Seriously, where did I present generalizations? Is that just something you type when you don't have an argument to present?

Not knowing if God's character is omnibenevolent or omnimalevolent is not an indication of not knowing any character of God.
That's nice, Mhykiel. It's the character of God being discussed. If you disbelieve that, check the thread title.

As I said I do not accept an omnibenevelont god. The only argument I see for one is that evil is the absence of good. And God is lacking in nothing. God does not portray the absence of qualities. God is the absence of absent characteristics.
One can just as easily suggest that good is the absence of evil, and God is lacking in nothing. In fact, in that the book you believe to be "God's word" claims God created evil, it would be a bit ridiculous to claim that it's not a quality of God.

In my mind that could make god definable as omnibenevolent, but it is academic because it does not help any of us humans discern what omnibenevolent actions are.
It's a human word, Mhykiel. We know what it means. Those of us who actually understand the nature of "good" and "evil" even understand why it's not possible. Those who subscribe to religious claims regarding good and evil can't understand it, because they apparently, still haven't eaten the fruit - they don't understand the nature of good and evil, and take them to be absolutes.

But in you're fumbling to explain without violating the biblical premise for "good" and "evil", you're almost falling face-first into the reality.

Darkness is not anything. It is the absence of light. The light can be blue, green, white, x-ray, etc.. But darkness can only be the amount light does not penetrate a space.
What about UV light, or IR light, or x-rays, gamma rays, microwaves? There are all sorts of different levels in the electromagnetic spectrum. We usually call it "light" when it falls within what triggers a response in the cells of our retinas. But that doesn't mean that the ranges we can't see aren't light. It can be said that light is all around you, even in a dark room. Don't believe me? Take a radio into a completely dark room and turn it on. The radio converts the signals in the electromagnetic waves back into sound. So if you hear a radio broadcast, it's not "dark", even though you - as a human with human eyes - can't see.

So if Evil is the absence of Good. Then God would be all-good.
That's a purely biased assignment. Why can't God be all evil?

It is reasoning to define something, but it helps not in discerning the something. Because we as humans have never observed, experienced, or can discern what "best possible good is".
Or what best possible evil is... except based on our own perspective. But, of course, that's all "good" and "evil" reveal, is our perspective.

Again actions and their results are not black and white. So if the result is "best possible good" then it infers the result may have some parts that are bad.
Nooooo. "Best possible good" infers that which has no parts that are bad. Theistic double-talk only works on theists.

Can an all-good god perform an action that is MOSTLY good?
No. That would make him a "mostly good God".

If so then God can perform the best possible good. accepting and allowing the parts that are absent of good to accomplish an effect or result that is the best possible good.
No, the best possible good would be the action which doesn't include the parts that are bad.

But what is good? In the Bible God decides what is good.
In Nazi Germany, Hitler decided what was good.

The Hebrew root for what is translated as "good" in English is functional. So God calls good what works for his goals. So God does what he does to accomplish his goals.
Hitler called what achieved his goals "good", and did what he did to accomplish those goals.

This is in harmony with how other intelligent beings act, how the world exists, the actions I attribute to God, and with God's nature.
But it makes the mere concepts of "good" and "bad" completely beyond the range of reason. And therefore, not only nullifies the concepts, but leaves humans as mindless robots to accept good and bad, not upon the outcomes, but only upon who decided upon the actions. It's no different than the Nazi mindset where whatever Hitler did was "good", and that which prevented Hitler from attaining his goals, was "bad".

And you have just illustrated that the people of Nazi Germany weren't "insane" as so many suggest. They simply fell for the same dictatorial thoughtless mindset that is dictated by most religious fundamentals. And it's one of the primary reasons that religion is so ridiculously dangerous. Do you think for one moment, that Nazis didn't try to justify their actions using the same arguments you just produced?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 5:38:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:43:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:39:36 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:10:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 6:57:03 AM, Envisage wrote:
I find Stephen Law's evil God challenge compelling enough to demonstrate that it's impossible to demonstrate the existance of an omnibenevolent God, as the same arguments can be flipped for an omnimalevolent God.

Personally I don't find any of the theodicies for the PoE at all convincing, the earth is nothing like what I would expect from an all good intervening God.

haha. I'm not an Omni-physicist expert. But what I do think I know about physics leads me to assert that the earth is not what I would expect if it were made by an Omni-physicist expert. That is your critical thinking at work. Brilliant.

An Omni-physicist expert would be a being that knows everything about physics of reality.

Thanks for admitting you are not omnibenevolent. Then asserting that if you imagined what an omnibenevolent being would do, It is not the world you see around you.

And in Atheist fashion you consider that objective evidence to support a non-claim of lacking believe in God.

What you imagine should happen, imagining from a perspective you clearly are not capable of understanding, does not match the facts of this real world so..

therefore it is NOT your imagination that could be wrong.

It is that God is wrong.

Yeah I got it Atheist genius at work.

F*ck you, you condescending f*ggot?

K? Thxbye.

Clap Clap great rebuttal. I expose your premises do not logically follow the conclusion and your response is ad hominem.

Do you even know what ad hominem is?
Dude... Stop...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 5:40:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 5:18:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 4:50:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/12/2014 4:08:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Again why my speech is accusatory of you is because:

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT.

That is so basic to every kind of logic, philosophy, or type of reasoning, it completely astounds me how you continue to equate such a fallacy to actually being core to logical inquiry.

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT. <- negative version.

You can ONLY know something when "a priori" OR "a posteriori" knowledge are PRESENT. <- positive version.

Your problem here is as it often is; you don't grasp the very logic you're attempting to use. You've obviously read it and understand barely enough to know to what type of discussion it applies. That's why you presented it without even realizing that what it does is to destroy your entire argument. But as you've so thoroughly demonstrated here; you don't truly understand it. And you probably never will. Because you've labeled those who understand it as "evil", "wicked", "stupid" and immediately looked upon us as your enemy. And from that moment forth, you disable yourself from learning from us.


Not so, after the hole is bored in my head, I'm converting to Atheism BECAUSE I have learned so much from you.
Let me know if you need to borrow a drill.

Here is the reality, Mhykiel. (And I know you'll reject it without consideration... as you always do.)

No rejecting something without consideration of the argument is an Atheist tactic. It's called the "default position"
I guess you missed this AGAIN... I WAS A THEIST FOR 33-YEARS! So obviously, I considered he theist position. I considered it seriously for at least a decade and a half. Then I thought deeply about it for around a year, and decided to wait for any credible evidence of God. And here I am 22-years later, and there still isn't any... and theists (such as yourself), still can't provide any. So hush your BS about atheists dismissing concepts without consideration.

- There is no such thing as "good"

Well I defined "good" as the accomplishment of God's will.
Which works about as well as defining "good" as the accomplishment of Hitler's will. It worked well for the Nazis. Does that mean it was a valid definition?

That is within scope of this argument, where God's existence is not being debated. Just whether God is omnibenevolent or not. This again is an Atheist tactic diverting all arguments to the "God does not exist".
Gee, Mhykiel, is it necessary for me to define "atheist" for you?

I'm in agreement with you:: in a metaphysical world where god does not exist there would be no such thing as good.
And since you have suggested that good is the absence of evil, then in a metaphysical world, there would be no absence of evil.

- There is no such thing as "evil"

I actually already agree with you on this. The term "evil" is semantic. Like the words "nothing" or "impossible", they denote the absence or negation of things that are real.
No, they simply provide a perspective. I see a man shooting a deer as "evil". The man's family has probably been brainwashed into thinking that daddy is just putting food on the table (despite the fact that the average deer hunter pays over $16 per pound for venison), and sees it as "good".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 5:56:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 5:18:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 4:50:24 PM, Beastt wrote:

All of these things are simply a matter of perspective. And while that is demonstrably factual, it's completely contrary to the Bible, and to most religions which arise from primitive feeble minds. And unfortunately, the majority of the human race still operates upon the feeble false premises of "good and evil". But once you understand that it's all just a matter of perspective, your silly "good vs evil" God concepts, stories and values, simply fall to rubble.


I see my arguments may have been too long for your attention span. I was using a lot of words to support and establish what I was saying. I suppose I should just assert stuff without descriptions, when I become an Atheist. I digress:
No, you should just learn to understand what you're attempting to convey, so that you can do so without confusing yourself to the point that you destroy your own argument, even while attempting to present it.

I'm saying humans can not know if God is "good or evil" from our perspective.
So then... "good" and "evil" are just perspectives?

By definition God should have no absence in his character.
So then, God would have no absence of evil... making him all evil, and no absence of good, making him all good?

So he is by definition all-good. Because Evil is the lack of good.
Or, good is the lack of evil. See, you're just using a bias so assign evil as the lack of good, rather than good as the lack of evil. There is no fundamental premise to support that kind of ridiculous assertion, so it can just as accurately be reversed.

But human perspective eliminates the ability to discern if the actions are "most possible good" and furthermore an all-good entity can perform an action or a secondary external state that is not completely good.
So once again, you're stumbling around the correct answer here - good and evil are simply perspectives.

not completely good would be where an action of "most possible good" would be categorized as.
If I have eliminated all light from a sample chamber, isn't that the "most possible dark"? And yet, the most possible dark contains no light, just as the "most possible good" should contain no evil... unless good and evil are simply perspectives (which is the case).

You're at a party and you meet two people; Gary and Steve. Both of them seem pretty cool at first. But as you engage them in conversation, you start to notice that Gary seems to carry a lot of prejudice. He doesn't seem to think men should ever listen to women, hates homosexuals, is clearly racist and laughs when someone mentioned the guy who was executed in prison the day before. Steve, on the other hand, doesn't seem to present these prejudices but there's something about him which makes you feel uneasy. Eventually, they start to exchange war stories and Gary immediately begins to beam as he talks about how he was one of the top bomber pilots in his Air Force division and he radiates joy as he discusses the thousands and thousands of people killed by the bombs he dropped. Even Steve seems to be a bit taken aback by his apparent joy at the death of others. But when you ask Steve if he has ever killed anyone, he openly tells you that he did. And it wasn't in a war. He admits to you that he killed a family of 10, but then tries to qualify his actions by telling you that he was drunk and he did it on a bet.

Can you tell me which of these two people are the most malevolent or the most benevolent?


That is an interesting story.
It's a story you've heard many times before. Only the names and inconsequential details have been changed.

Human perspective can not discern omni-benevolence. How does my claim of that, equate to you suggesting humans can not discern any benevolent, or in this case malevolent actions at all.
You're saying we can discern benevolence, but not in the absence of malevolence. And the reverse; we can discern malevolence, but not in the presence of benevolence. Otherwise, we'd be fully capable of discerning both omni-benevolence and omni-malevolence. So why do you suggest that the presence of a minority of malevolence, prevents us from discerning benevolence? If we can discern either one, then we can discern them devoid of the other. You're essentially telling me that humans can detect the zeros in a bin of ones and zeros, but can't detect the zeros in a bin filled only with zeros.

Since you like stories, You are at a party.
No, no, no! That's not how it works, Mhykiel. Though I accept that it is how YOU work. You constantly ask me questions in our debates and I do my best to answer them. But when I ask you questions, you just skip right by. And that's because you instantly recognize that if you provide the proper answer, it will help to destroy your argument. But to avoid such questions is to practice intellectual dishonesty. You can see that I'm correct, so you simply evade. You get to answer my question first. Then we'll move on to your story about Gary and Steve.

Which one seems the most benevolent to you, and which is the most malevolent; Gary the bomber pilot, or Steve the murderer of a family?

And I'll not respond to anything else you present, until you answer. Level playing field, okay?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 6:19:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 5:40:02 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/12/2014 5:18:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 4:50:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/12/2014 4:08:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Again why my speech is accusatory of you is because:

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT.

That is so basic to every kind of logic, philosophy, or type of reasoning, it completely astounds me how you continue to equate such a fallacy to actually being core to logical inquiry.

You can NOT know something when "a priori" AND "a posteriori" knowledge are ABSENT. <- negative version.

You can ONLY know something when "a priori" OR "a posteriori" knowledge are PRESENT. <- positive version.

Your problem here is as it often is; you don't grasp the very logic you're attempting to use. You've obviously read it and understand barely enough to know to what type of discussion it applies. That's why you presented it without even realizing that what it does is to destroy your entire argument. But as you've so thoroughly demonstrated here; you don't truly understand it. And you probably never will. Because you've labeled those who understand it as "evil", "wicked", "stupid" and immediately looked upon us as your enemy. And from that moment forth, you disable yourself from learning from us.


Not so, after the hole is bored in my head, I'm converting to Atheism BECAUSE I have learned so much from you.
Let me know if you need to borrow a drill.

Here is the reality, Mhykiel. (And I know you'll reject it without consideration... as you always do.)

No rejecting something without consideration of the argument is an Atheist tactic. It's called the "default position"
I guess you missed this AGAIN... I WAS A THEIST FOR 33-YEARS! So obviously, I considered he theist position. I considered it seriously for at least a decade and a half. Then I thought deeply about it for around a year, and decided to wait for any credible evidence of God. And here I am 22-years later, and there still isn't any... and theists (such as yourself), still can't provide any. So hush your BS about atheists dismissing concepts without consideration.

Oh so when you accuse me of dismissing stuff without consideration that was snide, but when I accuse you it is BS. And deserves a paragraph for a response.

This is childish, it's like you saying my mom is fat, and I say your mom is sooo-fat, and then you respond with a description of your mom and say she weighs herself nightly and is definitely not fat according to the Hieght-weight standards of the medical community.

Don't throw rocks if you can't take them Beastt.

- There is no such thing as "good"

Well I defined "good" as the accomplishment of God's will.
Which works about as well as defining "good" as the accomplishment of Hitler's will. It worked well for the Nazis. Does that mean it was a valid definition?


Considering the subjects (God or Hitler) are so dissimilar in qualities I would say your analogy does not hold.

That is within scope of this argument, where God's existence is not being debated. Just whether God is omnibenevolent or not. This again is an Atheist tactic diverting all arguments to the "God does not exist".
Gee, Mhykiel, is it necessary for me to define "atheist" for you?


No I understand that a "lack of believe in god/s" is what makes you definable as an Atheist. But in a context of talking about God's Omanibenevolence your justification for God having no Omanibenevolence is because "God does not exist". This is off topic. In a metaphysical world where god does not exist there would be no such thing as good. When "good" is defined as "God's will"

I'm in agreement with you:: in a metaphysical world where god does not exist there would be no such thing as good.
And since you have suggested that good is the absence of evil, then in a metaphysical world, there would be no absence of evil.

unless that metaphysical world was completely good. In which case how would "good" be recognized? It would be universally intrinsic in such a metaphysical world. And go unpraised or valued.


- There is no such thing as "evil"

I actually already agree with you on this. The term "evil" is semantic. Like the words "nothing" or "impossible", they denote the absence or negation of things that are real.
No, they simply provide a perspective. I see a man shooting a deer as "evil". The man's family has probably been brainwashed into thinking that daddy is just putting food on the table (despite the fact that the average deer hunter pays over $16 per pound for venison), and sees it as "good".

What you describe is a subjective measure of "good". But you have not refuted my argument with this illustration. From your perspective (subjective) the killing of a deer (action) is "evil" (absent of any good).

A glass is on the counter. it is half filled with water. The space atop the water is nothing (exclude air in the simplest analogy). It is not water. It is the empty half of the glass. It is the absence of water in that half that makes the glass even possible to be described as a half-empty glass of water. Every description about the top half of the glass, is a description of things it lacks.

To truly refute me, you have to show show an example or thought experiment where something was "evil" by itself.

Which, and I already told you is semantic, because the same argument can be made replacing "evil" with "good". Same argument for contrary words.

So "good" has to have an objective measure of it to be discernible. There is no objective measure to any of your stories about deer killing, steve or gary.

I'll elaborate: "in a metaphysical world without God there would be no objective measure of "good" or evil."

The dichotomy is because you have to accept either "evil" or "good" as the substance and the other as the absence. They relate to each other on the same continuum or scale. So it is not Apples on one side and oranges on another. It is varying degrees between the two. This is not a false dichotomy because "Good" does not change into evil. That would be a relationship on a single continuum of transformation.

Most things we accept as "good" are the things that are the substance. Having money is "good", not having it is "bad".

So add it all together. One needs an objective measurement of something to define "Good" and "good" is the presence of the something. humans can not perform this objective measurement, we are too subjective. God's will is subjective as well. It is his personal will. But the creator of the universe and maker of all things of substance make God's opinion of what is good, effectively the most objective measure obtainable.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 6:42:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 5:56:04 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/12/2014 5:18:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 4:50:24 PM, Beastt wrote:

Human perspective can not discern omni-benevolence. How does my claim of that, equate to you suggesting humans can not discern any benevolent, or in this case malevolent actions at all.
You're saying we can discern benevolence, but not in the absence of malevolence. And the reverse; we can discern malevolence, but not in the presence of benevolence. Otherwise, we'd be fully capable of discerning both omni-benevolence and omni-malevolence. So why do you suggest that the presence of a minority of malevolence, prevents us from discerning benevolence? If we can discern either one, then we can discern them devoid of the other. You're essentially telling me that humans can detect the zeros in a bin of ones and zeros, but can't detect the zeros in a bin filled only with zeros.


Yeah I am saying that. If humans only ever lived in a bin of zeros, how would they know the value of zero? They would think it was common and universal, humans would not see zero as preferable or not.

Since you like stories, You are at a party.
No, no, no! That's not how it works, Mhykiel. Though I accept that it is how YOU work. You constantly ask me questions in our debates and I do my best to answer them. But when I ask you questions, you just skip right by. And that's because you instantly recognize that if you provide the proper answer, it will help to destroy your argument. But to avoid such questions is to practice intellectual dishonesty. You can see that I'm correct, so you simply evade. You get to answer my question first. Then we'll move on to your story about Gary and Steve.

Which one seems the most benevolent to you, and which is the most malevolent; Gary the bomber pilot, or Steve the murderer of a family?

And I'll not respond to anything else you present, until you answer. Level playing field, okay?

Sure. Gary the bomber would bother me as well. I would consider both of them pretty malevolent because your story hasn't show the "possible Good" resulting from either of the two men. Steve's actions are illegal. Legal being the man-system of moral perspective we live in.

That doesn't equate to the universal objective measure of "good" or "evil" just the consensus of human morality.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 7:04:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Good" is the accomplishment of God's Will.

Evil is the absence of Good.

Good in Hebrew is the same root as functional. When something is not functional (ie not good) it is broken. God did not make us broken. We choose to be broken.

What do we do with broken stuff? We either Fix it or throw it away. If We are so Broken that we refuse God to fix us, God will throw you away.

To be fixed requires accepting God to fix oneself.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 7:13:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 6:19:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/12/2014 5:40:02 PM, Beastt wrote:

No rejecting something without consideration of the argument is an Atheist tactic. It's called the "default position"
I guess you missed this AGAIN... I WAS A THEIST FOR 33-YEARS! So obviously, I considered he theist position. I considered it seriously for at least a decade and a half. Then I thought deeply about it for around a year, and decided to wait for any credible evidence of God. And here I am 22-years later, and there still isn't any... and theists (such as yourself), still can't provide any. So hush your BS about atheists dismissing concepts without consideration.

Oh so when you accuse me of dismissing stuff without consideration that was snide, but when I accuse you it is BS. And deserves a paragraph for a response.

This is childish, it's like you saying my mom is fat, and I say your mom is sooo-fat, and then you respond with a description of your mom and say she weighs herself nightly and is definitely not fat according to the Hieght-weight standards of the medical community.

Don't throw rocks if you can't take them Beastt.
No one threw any rocks. I posted a comment which is absolutely consistent with what you've demonstrated. You then tried to claim the same applies to atheists and I demonstrated your statement to be false. The only one doing anything childish was your unwarranted attempt to turn a criticism you have earned, upon those who have not earned such criticism.

- There is no such thing as "good"

Well I defined "good" as the accomplishment of God's will.
Which works about as well as defining "good" as the accomplishment of Hitler's will. It worked well for the Nazis. Does that mean it was a valid definition?


Considering the subjects (God or Hitler) are so dissimilar in qualities I would say your analogy does not hold.
To the contrary, they're incredibly similar. God and Hitler both attempted to engage in genocide, used killing as a means to attempt to eradicate what they claimed was "evil", tried to silence those who spoke out against them, and used faulty concepts of "good" and "evil" to justify their actions. And since Hitler was a Catholic and claimed that he was continuing the fight of Christ against the Jews, that places him even more on par with God.

That is within scope of this argument, where God's existence is not being debated. Just whether God is omnibenevolent or not. This again is an Atheist tactic diverting all arguments to the "God does not exist".
Gee, Mhykiel, is it necessary for me to define "atheist" for you?


No I understand that a "lack of believe in god/s" is what makes you definable as an Atheist. But in a context of talking about God's Omanibenevolence your justification for God having no Omanibenevolence is because "God does not exist". This is off topic. In a metaphysical world where god does not exist there would be no such thing as good. When "good" is defined as "God's will"
It's not off topic when it explains why we find no omnibenevolence in a world which is claimed to be under the control of an omnibenevolent being.

I'm in agreement with you:: in a metaphysical world where god does not exist there would be no such thing as good.
And since you have suggested that good is the absence of evil, then in a metaphysical world, there would be no absence of evil.

unless that metaphysical world was completely good. In which case how would "good" be recognized? It would be universally intrinsic in such a metaphysical world. And go unpraised or valued.
So if there were no evil in your hypothetical metaphysical world, there would be no perception of good. So again, we see that good and evil are about perception, while the Bible tries to sell them as absolutes.


- There is no such thing as "evil"

I actually already agree with you on this. The term "evil" is semantic. Like the words "nothing" or "impossible", they denote the absence or negation of things that are real.
No, they simply provide a perspective. I see a man shooting a deer as "evil". The man's family has probably been brainwashed into thinking that daddy is just putting food on the table (despite the fact that the average deer hunter pays over $16 per pound for venison), and sees it as "good".

What you describe is a subjective measure of "good".
All measures of both good and evil are subjective. That's because they are perspectives, not absolutes.

But you have not refuted my argument with this illustration. From your perspective (subjective) the killing of a deer (action) is "evil" (absent of any good).
Now you're attempting to supplant evil with omnimalevolence. Wasn't it your argument that malevolence and omnimalevolence aren't the same thing?
Shift goal posts...
...argue
...shift them back...
...argue some more.
...shift goal posts
... repeat.

A glass is on the counter. it is half filled with water. The space atop the water is nothing (exclude air in the simplest analogy). It is not water. It is the empty half of the glass. It is the absence of water in that half that makes the glass even possible to be described as a half-empty glass of water. Every description about the top half of the glass, is a description of things it lacks.

And...? Are you trying to tell me you're thirsty? What does that have to do with good and evil?

To truly refute me, you have to show show an example or thought experiment where something was "evil" by itself.
No I don't. I already refuted you. Hitler refuted you. The German people refuted you. The country of Japan refuted you. The U.S. refutes you. Show me any military conflict where one side claims to be good, and the other claims to be evil.

Which, and I already told you is semantic, because the same argument can be made replacing "evil" with "good". Same argument for contrary words.
As you've not included my statement to which you're responding, I cannot know what you're addressing.

So "good" has to have an objective measure of it to be discernible. There is no objective measure to any of your stories about deer killing, steve or gary.
Really? There's no objective measure to any of my story about Steve and Gary? Suppose we were to refer to Gary - the guy who reveled in killing thousands - as "God" of the Bible, and Steve, the man who killed a family of 10 on a bet, "Satan" of the Bible? Is there an objective measure now? All I did was toss in a few inconsequential details, change the names, and place them in a modern context.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire