NonContradiction

To All:

We seem to be talking past each other, which isn't unusual in discussions such as this one.

Since the AfE is an atheist argument against the existence of a Tri-Omni God, I must ask you to define your terms. If you mean by ''all-knowing'' that God has knowledge of everything that exists, then I would agree with you. His knowledge lacks any deficiency. Similarly, if you mean by "all-powerful" that He has power over all existents, then I would agree with you. His power lacks any deficiency. However, if you think that, since God is all-powerful, He should be able to create a square circle - and if He cannot, then God isn't all-powerful - then I would have to disagree with you. Now, let's take the term "all-loving." What do you mean by that term? If you mean that God must love everything and everyone - and if He doesn't, then God isn't all-loving - then I cannot agree with you. For God to love everything leads to an absurdity, since God must equally love evil as well as good. Similarly, for God to be "all-benevolent" to everyone also leads to an absurdity, since God must then be "all-benevolent" towards all malevolent beings. In other words, He must treat all benevolent beings and all malevolent beings equally, which also leads to an absurdity. Therefore, define your terms.

It seems to me that you think that you can argue against the existence of the Abrahamic God by arguing against incoherent concepts in Christian theology. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Judeo-Islamic concept of the Abrahamic God is very much different from the Christian concept of the Abrahamic God, but that doesn't mean that we are talking about two different gods. We are talking about the same Abrahamic God, even though we have completely contradictory concepts of that God. Tp prove that the Christian concept of the Abrahamic God is incoherent doesn't prove that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by NonContradiction :

Omnipotent = can bring about any logically possible, bring-about-able state of affairs.

Omniscient = for any true fact f, knows f

And I think a maximally great, Anselmian type God would be morally perfect. That means it is impossible to imagine a morally better being.

NonContradiction

You have not addressed the problems that I have with the definition of all-loving and all-benevolent. If we cannot agree on definitions, then there is no point in continuing.

Philosoft

I don't think omnipotence includes the power to bring about definitional absurdities.

I don't have a problem, for the purposes of discussion, with restricting God's love to his living creations. I don't think it matters if God loves my car, or Osama bin Laden's plan to destroy the WTC towers.

This is the heart of the argument. God's omni-qualities implicate him in the existence of malevolent beings. It's possible that some malevolent beings bring about greater good, but it's not likely that they all do.

You've lost me. It doesn't really matter what religions the tri-omni God belongs to; if the concept exists, the AfE is a potential refutation.

No, but I think some things make a lot more sense in a polytheistic framework. Monotheism struggles to incorporate many facts about the world, so an a priori presumption of monotheism is probably not warranted.
Well, then let's not call the God in question the "Christian" God or the "Abrahamic" God (something I've tried to avoid). What's wrong with just dealing with the tri-omni God for now?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by NonContradiction :

I'm trying to suggest that we don't need all-lovingness or all-benevolence. God is morally perfect, if he exists, right? If so, the rest follows.

NonContradiction

I think that it does matter if God loved Osama bin Laden's plan to destroy the WTC towers. Such an act was clearly malevolent, without justification.

Quote:

Well, then let's not call the God in question the "Christian" God or the "Abrahamic" God (something I've tried to avoid). What's wrong with just dealing with the tri-omni God for now?

If you want to call Him the Tri-Omni God, then fine. However, a God that is limited to just those three attributes doesn't exist, as far as I know. If you are arguing against a Tri-Omni God, limited to those three attributes, then you are arguing against a straw man.

NonContradiction

If you are going to argue against the benevolence of God, then you should define what you mean by all-benevolent. I don't believe that God's benevolence precludes Him from being malevolent towards some malevolent beings.

Wiploc

Wait a minute. What makes you think he was malevolent? You certainly aren't applying the same just-because-you-can't-think-of-a-justification-that-doesn't-mean-he-doesn't-have-a-justification standard that you use when you are defending god. You are using a double standard.

crc

NonContradiction

We have heard from Bin Laden, but we haven't heard from God yet.

Wiploc

1. That is hardly relevant to the argument.

2. It is also a disavowal of the bible. If you are going to disavow the bible, why do you keep insisting that god is quintomni?
crc