(July 29, 2021 at 3:15 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Job 38 seems like the most fitting reply to the OP. I do not think I could improve on its basic call for epistemic humility.

Sure. "Look at the trees" incredulity. So, you have no evidence that your creator god is good and has good will other than "he said he created everything in his magic book and you should therefore shut up"? Because I just read Job 38 and that's all I got out of it.

(July 29, 2021 at 11:28 am)Ten Wrote: Why would you make that assumption?

Even if you had evidence of such a Creator telling us that they're good and intend good for us, what evidence do you have of that actually being true?

If you assume a non benevolent god, would it imply that, after so much time past creation, the world would have been kinda destroyed already? Also, why would there be any beauty and all the good feelings in there?

The problems arise when you assume an omni-benevolent god. If the guy is just benevolent, then it's fine.

(July 29, 2021 at 11:28 am)Ten Wrote: Why would you make that assumption?

Even if you had evidence of such a Creator telling us that they're good and intend good for us, what evidence do you have of that actually being true?

If by good/benevolent you mean: has ultimately good intentions. Then clearly, the Abrahamic God in judeo-christian/islamic scripture is good. He intends to serve ultimate justice+ ever-lasting happiness for those who followed his path, and vice versa. 

Why should one trust what's in scripture ? because, under theism, we only know God through this very scripture. If we accept that the Qur'an, or the OT/NT are the literal word of God, then we should accept what they say about God. If we don't, then we are deists at best, and guessing whether God is good or bad seems to be an unanswerable problem for deists. It could be in fact a very good incentive for deists to investigate candidate scriptures and look for a thicker belief system.

An argument for the transition from deism to theism will look like this : 

P1: The deistic god either sent instructions to His creation or is inherently evil/not benevolent/ leads his creation astray.

P2: There are various aspects of order in this world

Conclusion: it's more likely that God sent us such instructions. as P2 is more compatible with a caring God.

A deity that made the smallest particle in the universe governed by precise laws of physics is unlikely to leave entire human beings without some kind of law. The entire fabric in the universe points to a lawgiver who cares about clarity and precision.

What would be the candidates for these instructions? Major religious experiences in history seem to be the best candidate for this. Although formulating arguments from religious experience is an entire thread in its own right.

....for those who follow his path

That's not benevolence. It's cronyism. Islam doesn't accept what the ot or nt says, at any rate. Your premise fails to satisfy necessary or sufficient condition, and your conclusion doesn't follow.

Eye yam so spesshul!
Mageek buuk sez so.
Airgo, god iz super spesshul!

Logic much, heathen?

(July 30, 2021 at 6:03 am)Klorophyll Wrote: If by good/benevolent you mean: has ultimately good intentions. Then clearly, the Abrahamic God in judeo-christian/islamic scripture is good. He intends to serve ultimate justice+ ever-lasting happiness for those who followed his path, and vice versa. 

Yahweh was a tribal war god.  He only cared about his followers, and he was brutal to them if they stopped worshiping or obeying.  He had no mercy on the other tribes.  He also advocated that women are chattel, and that slavery was peachy keen.

Ah, but he had an ultimate purpose, so he's good?  Great, any tyrant with an ultimate purpose must then be wonderful.

(July 29, 2021 at 3:23 pm)Ten Wrote:

(July 29, 2021 at 3:15 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Job 38 seems like the most fitting reply to the OP. I do not think I could improve on its basic call for epistemic humility.

Sure. "Look at the trees" incredulity. So, you have no evidence that your creator god is good and has good will other than "he said he created everything in his magic book and you should therefore shut up"? Because I just read Job 38 and that's all I got out of it.

Maybe you misunderstood or I was not clear. Very often theodicy is presented as if it were a defeater to Christian theism when in fact the so-called problem of evil is the actual argument from incredulity, i.e. the presenter claiming they cannot imagine what divine purpose could justify the touble, pains, and hardships of life. Job 38 is a reminder of how little we truly know.

That said, if there are truly vast cosmic forces of which we are unaware, and to me that seems obvious, then it seems reasonable to wonder what they might be and how one could align one's life to best account for them...without dwelling on it too much or projecting unwarranted certainty. Personally, I have more than enough reasons to say for myself that I know God exists but not much more than that. I have hope that God cares for me and has a plan even if it often does not seem so.

That said, I find discussions about theodicy frustrating because participants cannot seem to agree on a common nomeclature because there are too many terms of art bandied about.

(July 30, 2021 at 11:45 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That said, if there are truly vast cosmic forces of which we are unaware, and to me that seems obvious, then it seems reasonable to wonder what they might be and how one could align one's life to best account for them...without dwelling on it too much or projecting unwarranted certainty. Personally, I have more than enough reasons to say for myself that I know God exists but not much more than that. I have hope that God cares for me and has a plan even if it often does not seem so.

And yet I do not see these "vast cosmic forces".  Where are they and what are they doing?  That seems like a prerequisite for trying to "align one's life to best account for them".

That's the crux of personal faith. It's only viable to the individual, which automatically makes it unreasonable in the face of empiricism.

(July 30, 2021 at 11:45 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Maybe you misunderstood or I was not clear. Very often theodicy is presented as if it were a defeater to Christian theism when in fact the so-called problem of evil is the actual argument from incredulity, i.e. the presenter claiming they cannot imagine what divine purpose could justify the touble, pains, and hardships of life. Job 38 is a reminder of how little we truly know.

That said, if there are truly vast cosmic forces of which we are unaware, and to me that seems obvious, then it seems reasonable to wonder what they might be and how one could align one's life to best account for them...without dwelling on it too much or projecting unwarranted certainty. Personally, I have more than enough reasons to say for myself that I know God exists but not much more than that. I have hope that God cares for me and has a plan even if it often does not seem so.

That said, I find discussions about theodicy frustrating because participants cannot seem to agree on a common nomeclature because there are too many terms of art bandied about.

I thought it was an interesting topic to talk about. It's not a gotcha and I'm not making a claim. I'm asking why the assumption is that a Creator God would be kind, loving, and merciful towards us or have our best interest in mind.

It is possibly an argument from incredulity when I bring up pain, suffering, babies dying, the problem of evil and assert that I don't consider those things done with my or anyone else's wellbeing in mind. But the bigger conversation is, if I have no reason to assume those as evidence for a Creator God not being benevolent, by the same turn no one has enough evidence to just assume such a being would be good or be good to them. I mean, there isn't evidence of its existence, so, this is more just a branch of that conversation.