Wiploc

God's omnipotence is not implied by his perfection, because, in this context, "perfect" is a term of art. It refers to a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. That's all it means. If you use the word to mean other things too, we can never reach clarity.

Likewise, if you keep using "omnibenevolent" to describe a god who is sometimes malevolent, the discussion will keep going in circles.

Another example of how you twist words to no purpose: I pointed out that, traditionally, "evil" refers to causes of human suffering. According to that definition of evil, god is evil since he gives us suffering as punishment for Adam and Eve's fall. And you agree that god gives us suffering; you say he is wise enough to give us suffering. So, you yourself believe god is evil, according to the way I defined it --- and I was perfectly clear in how I defined it --- but you still call that character assassination. What words will you twist now? Will you say that by "character assassination," you didn't mean to imply any malice or inaccuracy?

I get the feeling that you enjoy making us run in circles, that you make it a matter of pride that you can't be pinned down as to the meaning of any word.
crc

NonContradiction

So we agree that God can be a perfect being with perfect attributes of knowledge, power, and benevolence without any contradiction.

Your problem, then, is that you are not proving anything, as I have said before. If the AfE cannot prove that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, then what benefit is it? You are merely arguing against Christian theology.

NonContradiction

You assert that I am twisting words and then you claim that "perfection" is a term of art. Now who is twisting words? I am using the word perfection here to mean without deficiency, to be flawless. Therefore, if God's knowledge is perfect, then it does imply that He is all-knowing.




I think that we have reached an agreement. God is a perfect being with perfect attributes of knowledge, power, and benevolence. There is no contradiction here.

As I have said, you are not proving anything with the AfE because it can't be applied to the Abrahamic God. As of now, you have accomplished nothing except to prove that a Tri-Omni god, with a small "g", doesn't exist.



Has the Abrahamic God traditionally been known to be evil? Now who is twisting words?




First of all, I don't believe that pleasure is good and pain is evil. You may believe that, but I don't. Secondly, to say that the Abrahamic God is evil is character assassination, especially when your AfE doesn't even apply to Him.

I am not making you run in circles. I am pointing out that your argument doesn't prove anything meaningful.

Dr Rick

It appears that you now see that it's a contradiction to call a god who is not benevolent all the time "omnibenovlent" and a god that isn't perfect "perfect."

Of course we're arguing Christian theology! The PoE doesn't apply to, say, Roman gods, who were never characterized as "perfect." . Did you think I was arguing anything else?!?! What do you think the point or the PoE is, other than to show that an "omni-god" is a contradiction? :banghead:

What is this "Abrahamic God" thing; if he's anything like Zeus, then of course the PoE doesn't address him. If he's the Christian omni-god, then the PoE is an arguement against his existence.

The PoE is an argument against omni-gods like the one of Christianity; it is not a argument against all possible gods.

Big G or little g, it doesn't matter The PoE is argument against the Christian god and those like him.

NonContradiction

Wait a minute. You just got thru arguing that omni isn't synonymous with perfection and now you are talking like it is.


Again, you are talking like "omni" and "perfection" are synonymous, but you have already said that they are not. The AfE argues against an omnibenevolent god, but there is a difference between "omni" and "perfection", remember?



The Abrahamic God isn't omnibenevolent, but He is a perfect God with attributes of perfection: knowledge, wisdom, patience, mercy, forgiveness, power, love and benevolence being among them.

As I have said before, the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the same God. They may have conflicting concepts of this God, but the God is the same, nonetheless. The AfE doesn't prove anything except something which is meaningless to begin with. Let's say, for example, that you proved that Jesus wasn't divine. Does that mean that you proved that God doesn't exist? So what you have proved that God isn't omnibenevolent. You haven't proven that He isn't a perfect God, nor have you proven that He doesn't exist. You are wasting your energy.

Dr Rick

NC, If someone says "it's a contradiction to call a thing that is not red all the time 'always red' and a thing that isn't colored, 'colored;' is it rational to conclude that the person is using 'red' and 'colored' synonymously?

Then upon what basis are you coming up with this jibberish about me 'talking like' omni and perfection are synonymous?! "Omni" is one characteristic of the putative "perfection" in the Chrisitian God, but it is not the definition of perfection, and it's fallacious to draw such an inference.

They are not synonymous. "My wife is a 'perfect' wife" is not the same as "my wife is 'omnibenevolent.'"

If your concept of god is something less than the all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful god of the Bible, as your arguement implies, then the PoE has nothing to do with your god, and more importantly, nothing to do with the god of Chrisitianity. If you want to call a god that is not "omni" perfect, go ahead; most Christians employ a higher standard for their god, and that is the one the PoE is aimed at.

If the descriptions of the god are different, it seems kinda' hard to understand how they can be the same. It's sort of like arguing that the "car" of Porsche, GM, and Nissan is the same car...

It shows that the all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing god of the Bible is a meaningless contradiction.

No, it means that Jesus is not divine; wha't your point?

I've shown that he's not omni; and while an omni god isn't necessarily perfect, a god that isn't omni isn't perfect.

Philosoft

Then why are you so concerned with the AfE? If the God you believe in is not the one that supposedly always acts in the morally best way, then the AfE doesn't apply.

Well, so the story goes, but there's no extra-theological way to tell how many gods actually exist. You can't rule out a priori the notion that the reason multiple distinct concepts exist is that multiple distinct gods also exist. This is supernaturalism we're talking about here; all bets are pretty much off.
I'd like nothing better than to offer an airtight deductive proof of all gods' nonexistence, but it ain't gonna happen. Instead, we have deductive proofs and inductive arguments that have much smaller scopes, and are thereby much more successful. The AfE is simply one of the many evidential arguments that counteracts the assertions of specific God-concepts. If you change your God-concept sufficiently, you're going to bypass the AfE entirely, much to absolutely no one's surprise. This is not, however, a universal defeator of the AfE.

NonContradiction

The God of the Bible isn't an all-loving God, and there is plenty of evidence to support that claim. The destruction of people in the Bible, such as Noah's people and Lot's people, implies clearly that the God of the Bible isn't all-loving.



It doesn't matter what Christians say. What matters is what the Bible says and the Bible clearly implies that God isn't all-loving. Why does a God have to be all-loving to be perfect? You are arguing against a nonsensical Christian concept rather than against the God of the Bible or Quran.



I am sure that you have heard of the blind men and the elephant. One of them grabs the trunk and believes that it's the elephant. Another one grabs the tail and believes that it's the elephant. Another one grabs the ears and believes that it's the elephant. Are we talking about two different elephants or are we talking about the same elephant?



The God of the Bible isn't all-loving so you are arguing against a strawman.

To prove that Jesus wasn't divine doesn't mean that the God of the Bible and the Quran doesn't exist. To prove that the Trinity is nonsense doesn't mean that the God of the Bible and Quran doesn't exist. Similarly, to prove that God isn't omnibenevolent doesn't mean that the God of the Bible and the Quran doesn't exist.
Wait a minute...How did you reach the conclusion that a God that isn't "omni-run-amok" isn't perfect? It sounds like you are saying that omni doesn't necessarily imply perfection, but perfection implies omni.

NonContradiction

Where did I say that the God that I believe in doesn't always act in the morally best way? Where is it written that a morally perfect God would be omnibenevolent?

Who is changing their God-concept? The God of the Bible is clearly not all-loving. The only people who have changed the concept of God in the Bible has been most of the Christians. They have concepts, such as the Trinity or the omnibenevolence of God, which are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Again, you are arguing against nonsensical Christian concepts, but that doesn't prove that the God of the Bible or the Quran doesn't exist.

Thomas Metcalf

NonContradiction:

Have I read you correctly, that you don't think God is morally perfect?

Remember, the problem of evil is a genuine problem if God is indeed morally perfect.

The two worst consequences of abandoning God's moral perfection, as I see them, are as follows. God is no longer a maximally great being -- that is, it would be possible to imagine a morally better being. That means that (1) it's not as obvious that God would be worthy of worship, and (2) that the ontological arguments as they're usually presented won't do a thing towards proving his existence. (They wouldn't, anyway, but it's obvious they can't even apply if God is morally imperfect.)