NonContradiction

Yes, you are correct. Does the PoE argue that God is malevolent or a tyrannt? I don't think so and that was the main thrust of my post to Tyler. You can nit pick at my post if want to. Tyler Durden is offering nothing more than emotional rants in the name of impeccable logic.

Dr Rick

Not as far as I know. I wasn't trying to "nit-pick" your post; imo, it's important to correctly define an argument for what it is and what it says, that's all

NonContradiction

Okay, fair enough.

Tyler Durden

Wrong again, as usual. The original PoE is credited to the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. Despite the inordinate amount of theodicies in the past 2500 years, Epicurus’s formulation remains unanswered. Since you are either ignorant or a liar, here is a refresher:

’If God is willing [to stop evil] but not able, then he is impotent.
If God is able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.
If God is both willing and able, then whence then evil? (where did evil come from)
If God is neither willing nor able, then why call him God?’

What exactly is a malevolent being, other than a tyrant? I am positive your response will be a classic demonstration of theistic wriggling, and at least, if anything, amusing.

Wrong twice over. The problem of evil, in its modern form does not simply prove that god is merely not omnibenevolent. It also argues that God, if such a being existed, cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. The PoE may be reformulated as an argument for atheism, or an argument for the non-existence of the theistic God.

• Premise 1: If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.
• P2: An Omni-max being would have the capability, the desire, and the knowledge to prevent evil (or gratuitous suffering)
• P3: Evil (defined as needless suffering) exists.
• P4: It is morally unacceptable not to prevent an evil, in which one has the means and knowledge to prevent.
• Conclusion 1: Therefore, God, if he existed, would have no morally acceptable reason for not preventing evil.
• C2: Therefore, it is impossible that God exists.

In other words, your understanding of the PoE is incorrect, because it endeavors to demonstrate the incongruence between the asserted attributes of God and the existence of unwarranted suffering, and leaves the inference open for the reader. Of course, the only legitimate inference is atheism.

Is there an echo in here? You would do yourself a favor by demonstrating how I am illegitimately besmirching God’s reputation, instead of repeating this bald assertion ad nauseam. Saying so doesn’t make it so, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, so do try and go beyond the limits of your debating tactics. I know it is difficult to break old habits, but you are doing theologians a disservice with your shoddy retorts.

Wrong. The original PoE by Epicurus does argue otherwise. Unless you manage to elucidate the difference between non-omnibenevolence and malevolence, which will be nothing more than an exercise in splitting hairs, you have not done diddly squat other than this pitiful declaration that malevolence is not synonymous to non-omnibenevolence. A Bruce Almighty being who is capable of ridding of all evil yet withholds himself from the best possible existence of his constituents for an unknown reason is a sadist.

Oh yes, it sure does, and my logic remains unblemished, thanks to your charitable yet heart staggering display of ignorance.

Tyler Durden

So far Noncontradiction admitted that he does not think God is omnibenevolent. However, a hypothetical God who lacks the attribute of *all-good* is decidedly inferior to the hypothetical God who does possess that attribute. Basically, Noncontradiction admits that he believes in a lesser God who he describes as *most loving,* but not the omnimax God.

Of course, the antonym of benevolence is malevolence, but somehow Noncontradiction doesn't think so. How can anything be non-benevolent and yet not be malevolent is beyond me, but rest assured, we will receive a heap of theistic reasoning soon enough. Well, a theist is usually an uncritical, prereflective, and unphilosophical person, so what else is new?

NonContradiction

You are long on assertions and short on support. How did you arrive at the conclusion that if God isn't "omnimax" then He is a lesser God? If I don't love Hitler, does that make me less of a person? If God doesn't love Hitler, does that make Him less of a God? Your statement that a non-omnimax God would be a lesser God needs support, unless you want me to accept it as self-evident, which I don't.



Strawman.



It's quite possible to be non-benevolent and non-malevolent. You sound like George Bush when he said to the world, "you are either for us or against us." Simply because I don't love somebody doesn't mean that I have to hate him, but if you think otherwise, then present your argument.

No comment.

NonContradiction

An omnimax God is a logical absurdity. God cannot be all-loving and all-benevolent. If God doesn't love malevolence, then He can't be all-loving. If God does love malevolence, then He can't be all-benevolent. As long as you are arguing against theological absurdities from the Dark Ages, you are not really proving anything that hasn't already been proven. It's as if you are arguing against a strawman because Christian theologians don't speak for everybody who believes in the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God is "The Most Loving" and "The Most Benevolent" of all those who show love and benevolence.

NonContradiction

If an omnimax God is a logical absurdity, then explain for me how an omnimax God would be perfect? Would He be perfectly absurd? If He doesn't love malevolence, then He isn't all-loving. If He does love malevolence, then He isn't all-benevolent. How is that perfection? Are you saying that if I don't believe in an omnimax God, then I believe in a less than perfect God? Are you sure that you want to say that? So a God that is logically absurd is superior to a God who isn't? So the only two choices that I have are between a logically absurd God or an inferior God?

Jobar

Tyler Durden:
Since you are either ignorant or a liar...

Tyler. Statements like this one are NOT allowed in this forum. You may say that you think an *argument* is ignorant, or from ignorance; you may quote contradictory posts from someone, and ask the cause for the contradiction. Ad hominem arguments, even mild ones, are frowned upon very strongly here; if we do not require calm and dispassionate behaviour from both sides, we would descend into blazing flame wars in no time flat.

As a mod, I remind all posters to keep it polite. Failure to do so will eventually result in anvils being dropped upon you from a great height!

--------------------------------------------------------

Noncontradiction, I recall one other theistic poster here who tried to justify a non-omnibenevolent version of God. Luvluv, who has not posted in some while that I have seen, never explained (at least to my own satisfaction) just how 'maximally benevolent' differed from 'omnibenevolent' for an omnipotent deity.

Do you want to comment on this? If God is all-powerful (able to do anything not logically contradictory) it would seem that there would then be no limit upon his benevolence, if we assume benevolence is one of God's traits. (Or do you deny omnipotence also?)

Tyler Durden

You are kidding, right?

I consider omnibenevolence qualitatively superior to any other attribute that describes God's moral nature. By definition omnibenevolence describes the nature of an entity as maximally moral perfection, or all merciful and perfectly just, which is superior, more perfect than any other potential description of moral nature. Now, since you claim your God is not omnibenevolent, then your God is not the omnimax God, who is by definition superior to yours. Anselm formulated the most concise conception of the omnimax God for all time: "That which nothing greater can be thought" If I can conceive of an omnimax God, then that God is, at least conceptually, superior to yours.
Correct. All Hitler had to do is to ask the all-merciful Lord for forgiveness of his sins, he would be welcomed back to open arms. God's love surpasses even the worst, most heinous crimes. Since God is traditionally taken to be all-good, at least in the Anselmian sense which means he will bring about the best possible state of affairs for his constituents, given his other attributes, omniscience and omnipotence.
It is quite self-evident, that the attribute of omnibenevolence is superior to anything else that refers to benevolence, or the lack of it. So, it follows that a non-omnimax God is lesser than an Omnimax one, at least by definition qualitatively. So, it is up to you to explain yourself why otherwise!
Incorrect. Was it my imagination, or didn't you post this howler: "... there is a difference between NOT omnibenevolent and malevolent." Care to explain yourself?
I disagree. Neutrality remains the pipe dream of philosophers in ethical matters, because a non-perspectival perspective is a view from nowhere.

I agree with you, that the absence of love does not necessitate hatred, but that is neither here nor there, a classical non- sequitur. You may be disinterested in particular circumstances, as we all are at times, but that is only for a singular instance, unless your interests are in question. And given that this creation is most decisively in God's interests, his characteristics are relevant to all putative state of affairs. So, a non-omnibenevolent God, who is capable of preventing all evil in his creation, but refuses for unknown purposes, is malevolent. Empirically, his efforts seems to be a needless demonstration of pain and suffering.
Especially on how much of a thumping you got elsewhere in the remainder of my post, you neglected to comment on them either.