Elfman

I more get angry at bad things than despair. I get angry because it ought to be different, and it will be. That is my hope. What do you have? That maybe we will someday be able to fix all the diseases and create our own utopia? Given that we are on the heels of the bloodiest century to date, what reason do you have to hope? Is man a better creature? More civilized? And what then when you die? You have nothing then. What is there to be hopeful about? Sure you can construct some noble dream of man's ability to conquer illness and the forces of nature, but it wont be a dream you can enjoy for very long because you will be dead. Have you reasons to be hopeful about something you will never see? Seems empty to me.

Antiplastic

What a(nother) disgusting mess.

1) A being could have all of the following properties: created the universe and all life; is non-spatial; answers prayers; cares about the shape of the skin at the end of your dick; has opinions on the US presidential election; sent Rabbi Jesus to die in the gnostic version of torture porn; exists in all possible worlds; is morally ambivalent. "Defining" is not some word sorcery by which you can magically prove that the being Christians worship who has all these properties also has the property of being morally perfect. You have to show that he is.

2) Moral values are not objective. The concept is incoherent and useless.

3) There is no unique set of maximal values, but

4) this is irrelevant, because an alleged God could still be morally praiseworthy.

100% false. It is trivially easy, as I have just done, to present a possible being answering to all the properties of the God christians worship which does not have the property of objective maximal goodness.

Elfman

If you claim that God must act according to only one character trait in any given situation, then you can cherry pick and call God bad any time he chooses to do anything. So, if suffering happens, then God must not be loving, and if God doesn't destroy the wicked now he must not be just, but if He destroys bad people then he must not be merciful, etc.... This is a classic strawman characterization of God which you use to lay at His feet the evils of man's freely chosen actions.

God allows men to sin. When Jesus taught us to pray, one thing he told us to do was pray that God's will "would be done on earth as it is in heaven." This directly implies that things go on, here on earth, that are outside what God would desire. This is obvious if one looks at sin. So the only satisfactory view of God you seem to except would be one that stops all suffering and evil and makes everyone a robot who cannot do as they desire. Well, something tells me that even in that case, you would then call God a control freak and hate him for that.

Same answer as above. Must God right every wrong here and now? Can some be righted at a later judgement? I think so.

I am glad you can see how you are creating strawman views of God. Omnimax views of God are, by their very nature, self contradictory. Example, How can God be both omni just (a punisher of evil), while at the same time merciful and forgiving (a subset of all loving)???? It isn't possible. So the problem lies in your characterization of trying to define God by a narrow method. But I agree that it does then make God seem less powerful and loving and merciful to go the other direction.....but God is not less powerful because he chooses not to use His power, and He is not then lacking mercy because He sometimes judges the wicked. I think you are taking an all or nothing approach...and that is disingenuous.



Well, I explain a little about natural disasters in a previous post so I wont revisit that. As to why he didn't make unthinking robots? Not sure. It probably has something to do with God desiring relationship....not just servitude. So God meets us where we are...while in our sin....at the cross...and offers us a better way. I think that is a far more meaningful and loving approach rather than to make robots.

Well I just disagree. If He made us with the capacity to not sin, and we then choose to just because it is a necessary option if we are to have meaningful free will, then we are at fault. Who changed the example to a baby? Adam was not a baby. He was informed as to what was right and wrong, had the capacity to reason, had the ability to not sin, and yet chose to do so. That is hardly comparable to dropping a fork in a babies crib. I never made the claim that God gave them the capacity to do evil as part of "complexity"....that doesn't make sense. God gave Adam free will...and part of being "Free" means you can choose to do what you want. Certainly God anticipated what Adam would do, but that does not make God responsible. Adam is responsible for his own actions. God just happens to be great enough to be able to work out an amazing plan of redemption which involves a great deal of sacrifice for us on His own part. But that is what you do when you love people.

connick

I have hope because over the past centuries humanity has progressed away from superstition. In some ways we are better, but in other ways we are worse. I couldn't say whether we have become more or less civilized, it depends on which aspects of civilization you are referring to. Nonetheless, my hope is for people to retake the responsibility that is theirs as well as the gratitude they are due rather than giving glory to or relying on a god.

I can enjoy the "noble dream" during my lifetime and I find satisfaction in knowing that I have bettered future generations. You seem to be implying that performing a beneficial act, the results of which you will never see, is an empty goal. That, to me, is the pinnacle of selfishness.

I find it interesting that you subscribe to a religion where the fruits of your labors won't be awarded to you until death. In all likelihood, death is the end of experience and your venture will be the empty one. Sort of like the reverse of Pascal's wager. If you live your life with the sole intention of procuring a cozy afterlife and turn out wrong, then you've lost the wager in a bad way. The nice part about an inverted Pascal's wager is that if I'm wrong I don't have to spend eternity with a seemingly sadistic god.

Oh, and please do respond to #103. I'm curious to see the continuation of your defense of God against the PoE.

Ignore the above statement, I see you responded while I was writing this.

Elfman

As to 2) I am afraid I do not understand you...you seem to say that no objective morals exist. So then how do you make any significant moral claims apart from your own subjective opinions?

As to 3) If t here is no set of maximal values, are there some that are better than others? What is your justification that loyalty is better than deceit for example?

As to 4) How can an alleged God be morally praiseworthy if there are no objective morals? Didn't you already discount them? So on what grounds can you judge God's morality as praiseworthy or not?

Antiplastic

"Seem"? I must not have been clear enough.

If you don't eat meat, how do you eat any significant food except for fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, eggs and legumes? I don't make significant claims "apart from" my own subjective opinions. I only make significant claims. (Hint: "mind-independence" is not a synonym for "significance".)

Sure. Don't you agree?

Identical to your own, in every experiential respect.

Come on now. Engage the noggin. An alleged god can be subjectively praiseworthy. This can be evaluated through evidence and argument.

Elfman

It astonishes me, given the history of man particularly in the most recent times, that you have this blind unfounded hope in man. So we have gotten away from superstition, and we kill ourselves faster and with greater efficiency than ever. The heart of man does not change, has not changed, and removing restraints on the behavior of people is not a recipe for improving things. That ought to be self evident.

On the contrary...doing a noble act is always a good thing. And doing it because you love your maker, as part of a relationship, adds a dimension of joy to that act that you will not be able to experience. A good deed done for its own sake is just a good deed. A good deed done out of love and as part of fulfilling a greater plan adds sweet context and joy. Either way...be noble!

not so....there are benefits to be gained here as well...for example, treating ones body well can lead to a healthier life less encumbered by sickness. Taking care of the environment means we can enjoy cleaner air, etc... Rewards can come now, or they can come later, or can be in both places. Your view is not representing well the Christian life well l lived. As to the Pascal's wager in reverse..ha ha...I have never liked that line of reasoning because I think it drives people to act a certain way in order to avoid punishment rather than out of a willful desire to love God. I think God knows our hearts, so I am not sure it would work anyway. God desires relationship, which will involve obedience....God does not want obedience only out of a selfish desire to avoid hell.

rhutchin

Then you were directed to the Bible where God has provided all this -- Do not steal, murder, lie, commit adultery, etc.

Why? What was your purpose for asking for this? By others, did you mean the whole world?

So you asked God to bring everyone you loved to a saving knowledge of Christ. That is a good prayer as the prayer of a righteous man is powerful. However, we recognize that it is ultimately God's choice as to whom He will save and God is not obligated to save any or all.

That would mean that you never sat down and read the Bible. I tend to doubt that. Why would you ask God for guidance and then not go get it from the Bible?

Are you upset that God should put you on display before the non-believing world to show the world how a believer puts his life into God's hands to do with as He pleases?

Is you younger brother upset that God allows this?

Accidental or on purpose? What was your uncle's relationship to God?

God has given me a wonderful wife, two fine sons, and two fantastic daughters-in-law who are serve Him. He provides me income to pay all my bills and has done so all my life. He has given me his word, so that I might know how to behave. He has given me my heart's desires. I lack nothing so far as I can tell.

Evil is not a created thing. It describes actions or consequences of the things that created things do. The POE is largely a strawman that obligates God to behave in the manner required by the person who then says that there is the POE. The person says, "God does not do what I demand that He do, so God has a problem."

You will find that God gives you the things that he has told you he will. There is no reason for God not to do so.

Aedan

Epicurus (341–270 B.C.) founded the Epicurean Philosophy. He made many contributions to philosophy, but one of my favorites is his riddle on the nature of God. Most people claim that God is omnibenevolent (all-good), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipotent (all-powerful). Epicurus had this to say about a god simultaneously meeting all of those requirements:

Is god willing to prevent evil but can't?
Then god is not omnipotent.
Is god able to prevent evil but won't?
Then god is not good.
Is god both able and willing?
Then where did evil come from?
Is god neither able nor willing?
Then why call it god?

Most Christians don't even bother to try to refute this. The few who do always say things along the lines of "God's ways are not our ways. There's probably a reason for evil that we don't know about," or perhaps "God created Satan, and Satan created the evil." That begs the question (the 'mysterious ways' defense). Since God presumably created Satan, if God is omniscient didn't he know what Satan would do? Back to square one.

As far as God's ways not being our ways, that too begs the question. If God is omnibenevolent, God couldn't create evil. There would be no capacity for evil in God at all, free will or not. And before you use the "free will" argument, if God is omnipotent it should be possible for God to create people with free will who would STILL choose good over evil. If God can't do this, then God isn't omnipotent.

I'm sure we've all heard the old riddle, "Could God create a rock too big for him to lift?" The purpose of this statement is to illustrate the absurdity of the argument of omnipotence. If God can create a rock too big for him to lift, then is his strength really omnipotent? On the other hand, if he can't create such a rock, doesn't this mean that his powers of creation aren't omnipotent either?

The standard theist answer to this paradox is that, "Of course God can't violate the laws of logic. This is a logically impossible task, therefore God couldn't do it."

This seems like a reasonable explanation; however, if God cannot violate the laws of logic, then that would mean that logic, at least, is superior to God. If God is subject to the laws of logic, then God cannot be omnipotent, since logic, at least, would be greater than God. Note that this also means that theists cannot fall back on the excuse that 'God is not logical and cannot be known through logic' if they use this argument, since if God is not logical, then God is not subject to the laws of logic. But if God is not subject to the laws of logic, then how do you explain the paradox about the rock too big to lift?

rhutchin

The issue here is this part--

"Is god able to prevent evil but won't?
Then god is not good.'

That God is able to prevent people from doing evil does not obligate God to stop people from doing evil. It does not mean that God is not "good' when He does not interfere in the affairs of men. That God is "good" says that the actions God takes are good (just and righteous in Bible talk) and not that God is obligated to take any particular action that some man imposes on him.

For most Christians, it is not an issue that needs refuting.

Evil is not a think that one creates. The term, "evil," is a descriptor that we use to describe certain actions or events. Murder is evil; it is an evil action. God merely defined evil -- Thou shalt not... -- and then allowed people to choose whether they would do evil. You are saying that God is obligated to prevent people from doing evil because He is omnibenevolent without explaining why this must be so.

Within the Biblical context, omnipotent means that God can do anything He chooses to do and nobody and nothing can stop Him. You merely use a secular definition as a strawman to draw the conclusion that you want. It accomplishes nothing with regard to the issue of God's omnipotence.