@MFM, yes I need to see more, you need to show if the majority believe God is omnibenevolet.

(July 15, 2013 at 1:02 am)Godschild Wrote: @MFM, yes I need to see more, you need to show if the majority believe God is omnibenevolet.

So, its majority now? First you needed to see that Christians believe that your god is omnibenevolent and now its about majority believing in it? What next? Would you like a denominational breakdown of which believers accept which attributes?

Well, guess what? Not our problem. Even if some Christians believe it, that's enough for this argument to stand.

Goal-shifting is a pretty frowned-upon tactic Godschild...

(July 15, 2013 at 3:59 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 15, 2013 at 1:02 am)Godschild Wrote: @MFM, yes I need to see more, you need to show if the majority believe God is omnibenevolet.

So, its majority now? First you needed to see that Christians believe that your god is omnibenevolent and now its about majority believing in it? What next? Would you like a denominational breakdown of which believers accept which attributes?

Well, guess what? Not our problem. Even if some Christians believe it, that's enough for this argument to stand.

So if the majority is so important, would you still be a Christian even if 99% of the world didn't believe in a deity?

(July 12, 2013 at 11:51 pm)genkaus Wrote: I see these two premises as contradictory to each other. You've defined god as the greatest conceivable being. However, you also require him to act in a particular manner by necessity. I'd say that doesn't have to act in a specific manner by necessity is conceivably greater than this one. A god who acts holy and perfect because he chooses to would be greater than one who does so because he has to.

I don't think I disagree, but there is a reason I grant these 2 premises: They're accepted by major Christian apologists and their followers. Premises 1) is merely an acceptance of Plantinga's Ontological argument and the Kālam Cosmological argument, and premise 2) is simply an acceptance of the "God's nature" objection to the Euthyphro Dilemma. So if they do in fact contradict each other, it would seem to necessitate dropping either one or both of the aforementioned arguments, which I think actually makes this argument bette! xD

To play Devil's advocate, I would think that apologists would respond that greatness of moral character trumps the apparent greatness of being able to behave otherwise. Or something. Moral perfection and consistency, in other words, seems to be the prime "greatness-making" attribute to apologists.

Quote:P3 and P4 are not as contradictory as you'd like. It is possible for him to desire that different people should consider different things as true and live according to different interpretations. It is possible that he considers that any interpretation would result in an acceptable way of life which would result in us joining him in heaven.

Now there's something I didn't see coming. xD Hm, the only (slight) issue I have is that believers tend to believe something along the lines of God revealing the "absolute truth" in his revelations, so most believers couldn't really use that defense I think.

Quote:One issue with defining god as you have is that either such a being must be beyond all logic or it must be subject to independent laws of reason and morality. For example, you are assuming some kind of morality if you conclude that as a result of being omni-benevolent he also must desire everyone to join him in heaven or that despite being omnipotent, he can't simply disregard how people have lived and have them join him in heaven anyway. Both of your conclusions here are effectively the same and therefore, redundant. If [P1, 2 or 3] have to be false even in part then it implies that a being fitting that description cannot exist.

There might have been a slight miscommunication on my part. It isn't soley on the basis of his purported omnibenevolence that I'm concluding He wants us to go to Heaven, but from scriptures detailing that claim, such as when Paul states something like te following:

"He isn't willing that any should perish, but gain eternal life."

The omnibenevolence just assists that premise.

Oh, I know my conclusions are redundant. I forgot to erase the first. :p

Quote:

(July 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: What do you think, does it work? My intention was to show that it seems contradictory to claim God's 3 'omni-' traits and intention for we humans to join him in heaven, with the fact that the apparent revelation detailing the method for this can even be interpreted in different ways, such that even the method can be disagreed upon.

Otherwise, it would seem that a Christian or Muslim would have to - if accepting the argument - come to one or more of these conclusions:

*God can violate free will.

*God doesn't posses one or more of His 'omni-' attributes.

*God doesn't intend for us to go to heaven.

*God's actions are not - or do not have to be - consistent with his nature.

I've often wondered why more Christians and Muslims do not choose to go with the fourth argument. It'd solve all their problems and leave their opponent without any refutation.

I think I can (somewhat) help you there. Like I say above, it's how they try (and fail) to escape the Euthyphro Dilemma, which is another huge problem for them.

Quote:"My god is not subject to any rules of logic or reason. He doesn't have to act or be in any particular manner. Whatever characteristics or intentions you posit as a result of rational conclusions are invalid. He defines what benevolence or potence is and by his definitions he is omni-benevolent and omnipotent. Your concepts do not apply."

Lol. Sounds about right.

Thanks for the critique.

You sent this message to my evil twin, DeistPaladin, but I thought I should be the one to reply.

(July 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: P1) God (Yahweh) is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being (the Greatest Conceivable Being or GCB) that exists in the actual world and is the perfect & uncaused creator of the universe.

OK, from the get-go, you may a lot of attributes to the Lord Yahweh that have more to do with the assertions by dumb-ass phony Christians who've never picked up the Wholly Babble except to carry it around with them in church like some kind of Hollywood prop.

Yahweh is not omnipotent.

• The Lord really needed a breather after creating the universe. On the seventh day he needed to rest. The Bible specified that "he was refreshed" by this act of resting (Exodus 31:17).
  
• The Lord tried to wrestle with Jacob and lost (Genesis 32:24-30).
  
• The Lord was frightened (or at least worried) by the people of Babel building the tower that would reach Heaven (Genesis 11:6).
  
• The Lord couldn't conquer the people of the plains because they had iron chariots (Judges 1:19). Apparently, iron is like Kriptonite to the Lord.
  

Yahweh is not omniscient
My favorite example is where Yahweh needs to go check out Sodom and Gomorrah to see what's going on.

Quote:Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Yahweh is not omnibenevolent
I'd almost need to read you the entire Bible to really make this point. Our Lord commanded genocides, provided regulations for slavery, admonished slaves to obey their masters and peasants to obey their kings, he provides rules on how to rape your sex slaves and he commands the killing of infants.

Further, not only does he eternally torture those who do not kiss His holy ass for all eternity, he seems to relish the idea and has hardened the hearts of the unbelieving trash like yourselves to that he can satisfy his sadistic glee on Judgment Day (better you than me, I say).

Quote:Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Quote:2Thes 2:11-12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Quote:Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

MindForgedManacle Wrote:P2) God's actions are, by necessity, consistent with his holy and perfect nature as the GCB.

Well, sure, if you define good, holy and perfect as what conforms to the will of the Lord. But this is a tautology, that the Lord wills what the Lord wills. Still, such reasoning is good enough for us Christians.

MindForgedManacle Wrote:P3) God desires (or intends that) that we - his special creations - join him in Heaven by accepting certain propositions as being true and living in a certain way, which are enumerated in holy texts that God directly inspired to would be prophets and followers.

See above where I outlined certain passages in Holey Scripture where the Lord makes it clear that he's already predestined certain people to burn forever in Hell.

Now it's not my place to question how the Lord gets his kicks. I can only assume he's working out his sexual frustrations after the ancient Jews took away his wife Ashra and made him one-of-a-kind (going monotheistic). He's only gotten laid once in the last 2000 years. Can you imagine what that must do to any man, let alone a god with a great big fiery pecker.

Quote:Ezek 1:27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.

So the Lord sublimates his sexual frustration by torturing godless trash like yourselves.

That's gotta be one of the best religious Poes ever. xD

(July 15, 2013 at 3:59 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 15, 2013 at 1:02 am)Godschild Wrote: @MFM, yes I need to see more, you need to show if the majority believe God is omnibenevolet.

So, its majority now? First you needed to see that Christians believe that your god is omnibenevolent and now its about majority believing in it? What next? Would you like a denominational breakdown of which believers accept which attributes?

Well, guess what? Not our problem. Even if some Christians believe it, that's enough for this argument to stand.

I'm glad you reminded me please break it down into denominations and if you would by individual churches in those denominations too. We do not want any mistakes here do we.

"Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

Or as Robin would say, "holy hand jobs, Batman!"

(July 15, 2013 at 3:02 pm)Tonus Wrote: "Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

Or as Robin would say, "holy hand jobs, Batman!"

Oh, that's a good point. The verse might have meant that the Lord will turn on those he means to turn on.

And the good Lord is both hot and hung, if the descriptions in Ezekiel 1:27 are anything to go by.

The Wholly Babble Wrote:Ezek 1:27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.

But would getting turned on by the Lord's glorious cock be a sin for male Christians? Or is it a sin to not submit to the Lord and receive his hunka hunka burnin love?

Oh, I'm gonna have to pray on that...