Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Soma · 03-16-2003, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by K
Soma:

Then it makes absolutely no sense to call God good. Good is a human word to describe what humans perceive goodness to be. If God doesn't fall in that category, then it's as non-sensical to call God good as it is to call Him pink (but pink in a way that humans don't perceive pink to be).

And I fully agree with you. As I stated earlier, to say "God is good" simply means that God is the source of goodness, not that God is actually good.

Soma · 03-16-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beastmaster
But earlier you cited Aquinas for the proposition that God is *not* good per se, but merely the *source* of both good and evil. Thus, it's not proper to say that God is omnibenevolent since he is responsible for good *and* bad.

To summarize, so far you have established that god is neither good nor moral.

You seem to be more convinced by the PoE than I am!

Then God is beholden to justice.

Now you are just contradicting yourself.

Edit: And whaddya know, in your next post you write:

Priceless!

By benevolent, I mean God does not do anything to us that is unjust. All His actions are always just, thus, as far as we are concerned, innately good.

Soma · 03-16-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beastmaster
If they only could have compressed the Bible into five words . . .

If you did that, the preachers would have no scripture left to preach!

Ganymede · 03-16-2003, 02:28 PM

You said earlier:

Quote:

[My]Objections 2 and 3 and replies 2 and 3 are erroneous.

Now you say:

Quote:

Originally posted by Soma
My first reply destroys the PoE argument. But assuming you reject the first reply, then my third objection implies God permits a limited amount of suffering to allow us to know happiness and cause us to strive for it.

I wish you would make up your mind!

Your first reply does not destroy the PoE, because the PoE takes no position on Gods morality. It simply posits the suffereing exists and that this in inconsistant with an omnimax god.

Soma · 03-16-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ganymede
I wish you would make up your mind!

Your first reply does not destroy the PoE, because the PoE takes no position on Gods morality. It simply posits the suffereing exists and that this in inconsistant with an omnimax god.

God permitting suffering in the world is not inconsistent with His omnibenevolent and omnipotent nature. My first reply implies that (since suffering is a form of evil).

orac · 03-16-2003, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soma
I did not acknowledge that an omnipotent God does not exist. I have redefined omnipotence to mean only those acts which are not logically impossible.

Preventing evil is not logically impossible.

The fact that you don't know how to do it does not mean it is impossible for any creature worthy of the title "God" to do.

You did acknowledge that your God is limited and restricted in his actions. The usual argument is that his ineffable plan will only be possible if suffering is allowed, thus making it necessary.

Btw, you still haven't explained why you think child abuse is necessary. (I hope you can't do that, too - in which case, I'ld like you to explain why you said God only allows necessary evil. Were you wrong?)

So, what's your answer? Why does child abuse exist? You seem to think it must be necessary, but I'm sure you could argue that it's completely wrong even though your God doesn't seem to be able to prevent it.

Ganymede · 03-16-2003, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soma
God permitting suffering in the world is not inconsistent with His omnibenevolent and omnipotent nature. My first reply implies that (since suffering is a form of evil).

So Beetle is right you are simply redefining the term benevolence to mean something other than common usage. You are saying that if God does X, X can not be evil. By extrapolation you seem to be suggesting that evil is not evil, because suffering (a form of evil) is permitted by God and God can do no evil. This is a bizare position.

Dr Rick · 03-16-2003, 02:55 PM

Soma, you need to address these solid refutations of your arguement and not just skate past them:

Quote:

God has already demonstrated his ability to bring about a situation in which there is no evil:

a) before the fall
b) heaven

If it is possible for God to do this in the past and in the future, it is possible from him to do it in the present. If God could do something to prevent evil but does not then he is not benevolent and the PoE remains.

Quote:

Preventing evil is not logically impossible...Argument 2 depended on the gratuitous assumption that it is logically impossible to remove the necessity of evil and ensure goodness remains knowable and attainable. That is not a logical impossibility. There are many ways that God could ensure that we come to know the difference between good and evil without actually allowing evil to happen. One way to do that would be to make sure that no evil deed went unpunished and that all wrongs were righted. That feat is within the realm of logical possibility.

Soma · 03-16-2003, 03:06 PM

This is the conclusion of my argument, presented as succinctly as possible: What is immoral to God is not immoral for God to do.

Note the difference between man and God: Immoral acts are immoral for man to commit, but not for God.

Zadok001 · 03-16-2003, 03:09 PM

Soma, your entire position is built on semantics. You're redefining omnibenevolence until the term no longer means anything - From what you've stated so far, the definition in your usage seems to be:

Omnibenevolent Act: An act commited by God.

It should be obvious why this is a fallacy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-16-2003, 03:06 PM	#29
Soma Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: United States Posts: 102	This is the conclusion of my argument, presented as succinctly as possible: What is immoral to God is not immoral for God to do. Note the difference between man and God: Immoral acts are immoral for man to commit, but not for God.

03-16-2003, 03:09 PM	#30
Zadok001 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Two Steps Ahead Posts: 1,124	Soma, your entire position is built on semantics. You're redefining omnibenevolence until the term no longer means anything - From what you've stated so far, the definition in your usage seems to be: Omnibenevolent Act: An act commited by God. It should be obvious why this is a fallacy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.