Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PandaJoe · 03-22-2003, 05:51 PM

It can't be. Or at least, I don't think it can be an attribute of a supreme being and still make sense. It's pretty simple.
To define something as "good", you must have a standard to compare it to. In the case of a supreme being, there must be a standard of morality that the being has to conform to to be considered good. However, if there is, then said being cannot be supreme, can it?
If the supreme being is itself the definition of good, then calling it good is a completely meaningless statement. Anything it does is by definition good.
What do you think?

Jobar · 03-22-2003, 06:27 PM

Quite so. Omnibenevolence and omnipotence which creates suffering is as much an impossibility as a square circle.

Ojuice5001 · 03-22-2003, 07:20 PM

It can be argued that a Supreme Being would have to be capable of both good and evil. After all, God is supposed to be an unlimited being, and isn't it a limitation not to be able to lie and steal?

Or so I would have argued about two years ago. The Supreme God is unknowable, and probably a mere metaphysical speculation. This board will never remove my belief in the Roman gods, but it has indeed removed from me the idea that there's point in speculating about the Supreme God.

Secular Pinoy · 03-22-2003, 08:02 PM

A possible theistic response, one which I've encountered, is that while god is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, god isn't omniscient. He is willing and able to prevent suffering, but he is unaware of it. He must be tending his creation on another planet to even know we exist. Note that this conception conflicts with the traditional theistic position. I've seen it used by those agnostic theists/deists who cannot accept that god is not omnibenevolent or omnipotent, but can accept that god might be limited with regards to knowledge.

betzerdg · 03-22-2003, 09:46 PM

Perhaps we're beginning backwards here. Defining subjective concepts like "good" and "evil" and then APPLYING them to our concept of who G-d is. Maybe more expedient would be for us to understand G-d, and then apply HIS attributes to "goodness" and that which is NOT HIS attributes to "evil".

And how do we understand G-d?

Alas, and woe...we are left either seeking to understand the uncomprehensible....
or....G-d forbid...seeking to define subjectively the objective and unmovable GOOD.

There are two ways of understanding G-d. ONE, thru HIS own revelation of HIMSELF to mankind in Torah and scripture.
And secondly, thru a very CAREFUL and Truthful look at our own self...as created in the image of G-d.

There are over 72 names for G-d in the Bible. All part of HIS DEFINITION of who he is. He is JUstice, Mercy, Salvation,LOVE etc, etc...WE also contain those definitions. But we also contain within ourselves that which IS NOT G-d....and the free will to choose THAT WHICH IS NOT G-D.....the "evil inclination".

In G-d there cannot be NOT G-D...because he is FULLY and without VARIATION G-D. So there is NO EVIL in G-d. YET because G-d has free will (though it is impossible to deny HIMSELF because HE IS)...there is freedom to choose perfectly the attributes of himself which will best bring the restoration of all things to holiness and completeness. (ie...choosing mercy over judgement..both good)

And why is there "evil" and suffering in a world created by G-d....simply because we can choose. And we have chosen the anti-god things that bring death instead of life. G-d has given us every resourse we need to feed and clothe the world....

As I said in another post...because we have free will, there is also the potential to choose that which is not G-d....and as we KNOW G-D, our attachment to good becomes greater. In creating something other than HIMSELF he also created the potential for "evil". We all have the free will to accept or reject that GOOD...and we will be held accountable for those decisions...both in this world....and in the world to come.

Shalom

Betzer

Cutter · 03-22-2003, 10:55 PM

He is ... LOVE

And like many other non-theists round these parts, I'm still trying to figure out just where the *gag* love is when dashing those Samarian babies to pieces and ripping open pregnant Samarian women. And that's just for a start.

Your god is not love, he's a bloodthirsty prick.

Theli · 03-23-2003, 03:01 AM

Quote:

To define something as "good", you must have a standard to compare it to. In the case of a supreme being, there must be a standard of morality that the being has to conform to to be considered good.

1. No, it doesn't have to be a standard for good because of a supreme being. The being can be supreme without the label "good" attached to it.
2. A being or a thing cannot be standard for a system. You can have this supreme being as an example, but not as a standard. It would be like saying that the standard for mathematics is 42.

Scotsmanmatt · 03-23-2003, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PandaJoe
It can't be. Or at least, I don't think it can be an attribute of a supreme being and still make sense. It's pretty simple.
To define something as "good", you must have a standard to compare it to.

M.Bell
1. What if good is quite simply part of the definition of God whether or not there is an external standard by which to compare it to?
2. What if that standard is the nature of God himself?

Quote:

In the case of a supreme being, there must be a standard of morality that the being has to conform to to be considered good. However, if there is, then said being cannot be supreme, can it?

M.Bell
If that standard is their own nature then I don't see why not?

Quote:

If the supreme being is itself the definition of good, then calling it good is a completely meaningless statement. Anything it does is by definition good.
What do you think?

Scotsmanmatt · 03-23-2003, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
A possible theistic response, one which I've encountered, is that while god is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, god isn't omniscient. He is willing and able to prevent suffering, but he is unaware of it. He must be tending his creation on another planet to even know we exist. Note that this conception conflicts with the traditional theistic position. I've seen it used by those agnostic theists/deists who cannot accept that god is not omnibenevolent or omnipotent, but can accept that god might be limited with regards to knowledge.

M.Bell
A more traditional theistic response would be that God is both aware of the exisence of suffering and evil in the world and capable of removing it but refrains from doing so due to an overriding reason/purpose. Whilst that purpose need not be identified since all one is providing is a possible explanation for the dilemma a provided purpose would be to maximise the opportunity for people to hear and respond to the Gospel, the ending of evil being equal in Christian theology to the end of that opportunity. It's a response that's not without its own problems, as I'm sure I'll find out but that's what debate forums are all about.

Thanks
M.Bell

philechat · 03-23-2003, 07:44 AM

Ah...the famous Euthythro Dilemma raised its ugly head again. We cannot attribute definition that does not belong to the being, until the definition is shown to fit the being. We are working exactly backward if we must re-define goodness with respect to God. According to Plato, if something is good because it is an attribute of God, or because God said it was good, then goodness must be arbitrarily defined. Otherwise, goodness must be defined independent of God, where God's goodness are to shown by comparing him to that "standard" of goodness.

To arbitrarily define God as good would render goodness meaningless. We have another thread that discussed the implications of Plato's objection.

03-22-2003, 05:51 PM	#1
PandaJoe Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bloomington, Indiana Posts: 188	Omnibeneovlence as an attribute of a supreme being It can't be. Or at least, I don't think it can be an attribute of a supreme being and still make sense. It's pretty simple. To define something as "good", you must have a standard to compare it to. In the case of a supreme being, there must be a standard of morality that the being has to conform to to be considered good. However, if there is, then said being cannot be supreme, can it? If the supreme being is itself the definition of good, then calling it good is a completely meaningless statement. Anything it does is by definition good. What do you think?

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

03-22-2003, 06:27 PM	#2
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Quite so. Omnibenevolence and omnipotence which creates suffering is as much an impossibility as a square circle.

03-22-2003, 07:20 PM	#3
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	It can be argued that a Supreme Being would have to be capable of both good and evil. After all, God is supposed to be an unlimited being, and isn't it a limitation not to be able to lie and steal? Or so I would have argued about two years ago. The Supreme God is unknowable, and probably a mere metaphysical speculation. This board will never remove my belief in the Roman gods, but it has indeed removed from me the idea that there's point in speculating about the Supreme God.

03-22-2003, 08:02 PM	#4
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	A possible theistic response, one which I've encountered, is that while god is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, god isn't omniscient. He is willing and able to prevent suffering, but he is unaware of it. He must be tending his creation on another planet to even know we exist. Note that this conception conflicts with the traditional theistic position. I've seen it used by those agnostic theists/deists who cannot accept that god is not omnibenevolent or omnipotent, but can accept that god might be limited with regards to knowledge.

03-22-2003, 09:46 PM	#5
betzerdg Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: kansas Posts: 16	Perhaps we're beginning backwards here. Defining subjective concepts like "good" and "evil" and then APPLYING them to our concept of who G-d is. Maybe more expedient would be for us to understand G-d, and then apply HIS attributes to "goodness" and that which is NOT HIS attributes to "evil". And how do we understand G-d? Alas, and woe...we are left either seeking to understand the uncomprehensible.... or....G-d forbid...seeking to define subjectively the objective and unmovable GOOD. There are two ways of understanding G-d. ONE, thru HIS own revelation of HIMSELF to mankind in Torah and scripture. And secondly, thru a very CAREFUL and Truthful look at our own self...as created in the image of G-d. There are over 72 names for G-d in the Bible. All part of HIS DEFINITION of who he is. He is JUstice, Mercy, Salvation,LOVE etc, etc...WE also contain those definitions. But we also contain within ourselves that which IS NOT G-d....and the free will to choose THAT WHICH IS NOT G-D.....the "evil inclination". In G-d there cannot be NOT G-D...because he is FULLY and without VARIATION G-D. So there is NO EVIL in G-d. YET because G-d has free will (though it is impossible to deny HIMSELF because HE IS)...there is freedom to choose perfectly the attributes of himself which will best bring the restoration of all things to holiness and completeness. (ie...choosing mercy over judgement..both good) And why is there "evil" and suffering in a world created by G-d....simply because we can choose. And we have chosen the anti-god things that bring death instead of life. G-d has given us every resourse we need to feed and clothe the world.... As I said in another post...because we have free will, there is also the potential to choose that which is not G-d....and as we KNOW G-D, our attachment to good becomes greater. In creating something other than HIMSELF he also created the potential for "evil". We all have the free will to accept or reject that GOOD...and we will be held accountable for those decisions...both in this world....and in the world to come. Shalom Betzer

03-22-2003, 10:55 PM	#6
Cutter Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,805	He is ... LOVE And like many other non-theists round these parts, I'm still trying to figure out just where the gag love is when dashing those Samarian babies to pieces and ripping open pregnant Samarian women. And that's just for a start. Your god is not love, he's a bloodthirsty prick.

03-23-2003, 07:44 AM	#10
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	Ah...the famous Euthythro Dilemma raised its ugly head again. We cannot attribute definition that does not belong to the being, until the definition is shown to fit the being. We are working exactly backward if we must re-define goodness with respect to God. According to Plato, if something is good because it is an attribute of God, or because God said it was good, then goodness must be arbitrarily defined. Otherwise, goodness must be defined independent of God, where God's goodness are to shown by comparing him to that "standard" of goodness. To arbitrarily define God as good would render goodness meaningless. We have another thread that discussed the implications of Plato's objection.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.