God formally disproven

[KichigaiNeko]

You are trying to shoe horn your deity into current scientific thought...your pastor is a liar if he is putting you up to this Christian.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I agree. I also don't think it's our position to have to disprove anything. The person who makes the positive claim must provide the evidence and argumentation.

Try reading the title of the thread "God Formally Disproved." A claim is being made and that claim is to have disproved the existence of god.The case can be made of internal inconsistency. But that is not the claim being made. It very clearly states that it disproves god's existence.

It is incumbent upon the one presenting this claim to define and defend the terms of each premise.The terms for good and evil are used in the argument. Yet no one is willing to step up and state the foundation of their morality that allows them to judge the actions of god.

[The Grand Nudger]

Chad, you're assuming quite a bit in your criticism. That there needs to be a foundation for this criticism that is acceptable to you, for example. When discussing subjective opinions (of which god is one) it's entirely reasonable to see how they match up to other subjective opinions held by the same culture. For example, the op is criticizing the notion of omni-benevolence (benevolence being subjective, but nevertheless a term with a widely agreed upon definition in our culture) and evil (subjective, but with a widely agreed upon definition in our culture).

Why not just say "I believe in moral absolutes, and if you can't point to a moral absolute I don't believe you"? Well, no one gives a shit about what you believe in, moral absolutes or monsters. This a criticism of a claim that is self refuting by the commonly held definitions of subjective value judgements. The only person making these claims are human being, the only entities involved are human beings (unless you care to demonstrate a god) so his being a human being qualifies him perfectly to make this criticism, no other foundation or authority is required because none was invoked in the manufacture of these principles (both god and evil) in the first place.

Let's be completely clear here, no one is judging any actual actions of god, there are people judging the actions, motivations, and consistency of human beings who wrote fairy tale narratives. Your god doesn't merit a fraction of the credibility you assume in your defense of it.

Whats you foundation for questioning other's foundations? Down the rabbit hole we go, wriggler.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Thus Speaketh the Master of Missing the Point.

[The Grand Nudger]

What point did I miss, care to elaborate?

[FallentoReason]

Yet no one is willing to step up and state the foundation of their morality that allows them to judge the actions of god.

Why do I need to state that? Where does it say I can't use my rational thinking to disprove God?

I can't tell if you're a theist but based on your argument, you don't have the right not to believe in a certain god because your morality most likely doesn't surpass that of god(s). Therefore you must theoretically be a Jew, Christian, Muslim and Hindu simultaneously.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The OP states that there cannot be a good god because that god allows evil. It is inconsistent to assert moral relativism and at the same time accuse anyone, including god, of immorality. You cannot say god is indifferent to evil and then turn around and say that there is no such thing as evil.

Waffling about morality seems to be a habit on this forum. People here want to accuse god of all kinds of atrocities and say how evil he must be. They also want to show all the evil performed by the religious people. Those who invoke these kinds of arguments behave illogical at best and disingenuous at worst. They want it both ways. They want to assert the immorality of religion and at the same time fail to provide any rational basis for determining why the actions described are in fact evil.

[FallentoReason]

The OP states that there cannot be a good god because that god allows evil. It is inconsistent to assert moral relativism and at the same time accuse anyone, including god, of immorality. You cannot say god is indifferent to evil and then turn around and say that there is no such thing as evil.

Waffling about morality seems to be a habit on this forum. People here want to accuse god of all kinds of atrocities and say how evil he must be. They also want to show all the evil performed by the religious people. Those who invoke these kinds of arguments behave illogical at best and disingenuous at worst. They want it both ways. They want to assert the immorality of religion and at the same time fail to provide any rational basis for determining why the actions described are in fact evil.

You're assuming a whole heck of stuff about my views on this thread. I have stated so many times the main argument I make. I don't say how immoral god is nor do I point the finger at believers and say they are immoral. I don't even say god is evil. Here's my argument stripped down to the core:

God is omnibenevolent. Because of his benevolence this means it is impossible for god to want to create anything less than a perfect world. Evil exists in the world. Therefore, god is not omnibenevolent. Therefore, he doesn't exist.

Can't get any more black and white than that.

P.s. evil doesn't only have to be about others' actions. Infant deaths by starvation is only just the beginning of the 'evil stuff'.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And you have failed to define any of the terms in your argument, i.e. benevolence, perfect, evil. Until you do so, your argument is a useless collection of meaningless words.

[NoMoreFaith]

Anyone else see a circular argument incoming, ready to shit all over the thread?

Your definitions are wrong, because God's will is automatically the measure for perfection, good, and benevolence, therefore a benevolent God exists.