Xixax

I did. I stated that an omnipotent, omniscient god could place knowledge of hypothetical evils into our mind without putting actual evil into the world.

That's a new question, and an impossible one.. You've just excluded our knowledge of it in the same question where you ask how we would have knowledge of it. I can rephrase your question for you to show that.

"How would you [have a standard of good and evil in your mind] independent of God if good and evil didn't exist in the world or [a standard of good and evil didn't exist] in your mind?"

I made the second change to make more sense of the question. However, if you mean literally as you've stated, then it's no longer an impossible question, but the answer is the same as above.

God, being omnipotent and omniscient, could have created us with hypothetical knowledge of evil that did not require actual evil to exist.

Thanks for answering for me, but we disagree.

The "idea" of good and evil is hypothetical knowledge of good and evil.

"You wouldn't have apples because you wouldn't have apples."

Not a convincing argument.


Same answer to the same question.

Correct ( god being omnipotent and omniscient ).

Still haven't proven that assertion.

The place where morality is set being dependent or not dependent on god has nothing to do with whether or not he prevents evil. If it's independent of him, he can judge based on that independent standard and allow it or not allow it. If it's dependent on him, he can still make a judgement as to what is evil and not evil, based on his own personal standard, and allow it or not allow it.

If good and evil just happen to be whatever god says it is then yes, but this doesn't affect that same god's ability to prevent or allow evil in his creation.

I don't agree, reasons stated above.

NonContradiction

How do you know that? I think that you need to define how you are using all-knowing and all-powerful. If something exists, then God has knowledge of it and power over it.

Did God have knowledge of the universe before it existed? Did God have knowledge of good and evil before it existed? How can we have knowledge of something that doesn't exist? If evil didn't exist, then how would you know evil?

Do you have knowledge of unicorns? You have the idea of a unicorn because you know what a horn is and you know what a horse is. However, do you have knowledge of unicorns or do you have knowledge of the idea of unicorns?

Xixax

He doesn't have knowledge of things that are "yet" to exist? If not, how would he "create" something that doesn't exist?

All-knowing: Knowledge of all things that exist and have potential to exist. All powerful: Nothing existing more powerful, and power over everything that exists or has the potential to exist.

The definition could get extremely long, but there isn't much point, I think I have pinpointed your objection and responded.

If he did not, then he could not have created it.

According to your mythology, good and evil would have always existed alongside of god, considering he is "good".

We have knowledge of lots of things that do not exist. I have knowledge of the perfect woman, I doubt anyone has found her.

I have knowledge of a perfect circle, yet none exist.

God should have knowledge of all things that have potential to exist, so he could give us hypothetical knowledge of evil without actually placing evil into our world.

Yes.

Partially, even though I have yet to see a horse with a horn attached to it's head outside of paintings which means the knowledge I have of that combination is outside the knowledge of the two in exclusion of each other. Knowledge of a unicorn, much like knowledge of a 12 winged bird, is knowledge of the potential existence of such a creature.

I explained above.

NonContradiction

The problem of evil may be a problem for you, but it's not a problem for me. The God of the Old Testament is portrayed as an angry, hateful God, and the God of the New Testament is portrayed as all-loving, and all-benevolent. Both characterizations are rooted in ignorance of the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God is The Most Loving, The Most Merciful, The Most Forgiving, The Most Benevolent, The Most Peaceful, and The Most Patient. He isn't all-loving, all-merciful, all-forgiving, all-benevolent, etc.

If God isn't all-loving, does that imply moral imperfection? If God doesn't forgive everyone, does that imply moral imperfection? If God isn't merciful to everyone, does that imply moral imperfection? Perhaps, according to your standard, it does imply moral imperfection, but not according to mine. So what makes your standard any better than anybody else's?

Philosoft

Aren't objective moral standards ideally supposed to be absolutes? What standard gives greater moral value to being A, who allows more needless suffering than being B?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by NonContradiction :

I take this to be a moral truth:

It is better to prevent gratuitous intense suffering than to allow it.

Once that is granted, the problem of evil follows. So do you accept or reject it?

NonContradiction

I suppose they are supposed to be, but I don't subscribe to objective moral standards.

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Was that commandment good or evil? If one subscribes to objective moral standards, then I don't see how one could avoid concluding that such a commandment was evil.

However, I don't believe in moral realism. I don't believe that there are moral facts that can be experienced in the same way that the material world around us can be experienced. Good and evil are a metaphysical construct. All values are subjective.

NonContradiction

First of all, can we dispense with the omni-max nonsense? We both believe that God isn't all-loving, but my reason for believing is different from your reason.

Let's assume, instead of omnibenevolent, that God is The Most Benevolent and The Most Loving. I see no reason why you would not be able to continue your present argument. The difference for me would be that I am not trying to defend something that I don't want to defend in the first place.

As far as your moral truth is concerned, you would first have to tell me how you arrived at that conclusion, or are you taking your moral truth to be self-evident? If it's a conclusion that you have reached, then how did you arrive at that conclusion? If it's a self-evident truth, then I must admit that it's not self-evident to me that it's better for God to prevent gratuitous intense suffering than allow it. It's not self-evident to me what God should do or should not do.

Dr Rick

That isn't the PoE, of course, so before we make such an assumption, we should first explore the evidence that warrants it, and explain how a being that orders genocide is "Most benevolent." Heck, I've never done that, so if someone who does is "Most benevolent," can we call me "Uberbenevolent"?

Tyler Durden

A God that isn't all-loving does not deserve any worship or praise. He is nothing more than a tyrant, who deserves to be overcome and conquered. An all-powerful, all-knowing entity who withholds himself in his infinite wisdom from attaining omnibenevolence does not deserve the name of God.

These characterizations of yours, the 'Most Benevolent' or the 'Most Loving' are your excuses for a tyrant's actions, which is par for the course for a garden-variety apologist. The belief that a non-omnibenevolent God being the ground of morality is at best, problematic.

I realize that your questions were directed at someone else, but I had an itch when I read your posts.

However, fyi, moral beliefs of my own are not self-evident.