(July 15, 2013 at 11:31 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: 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.

My point was, rather than granting contradictory moral premises and formulating an argument around them, you could've just as simply pointed out the contradiction and saved yourself the trouble.

(July 15, 2013 at 11:31 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: 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.

They are starting to. A lot of theologians have tried to reconcile different religions by using this argument.

(July 15, 2013 at 11:31 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: 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

Okay, that makes sense.

(July 15, 2013 at 11:31 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: 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.

You missed the point here. Saying that "X acts according to its nature" is a tautological statement. That's because X's nature is determined by how X acts. The statement doesn't tell us anything about X or its nature - its just another way of saying "X does what it does and doesn't do what it doesn't do".

Accepting that god acts contrary to his nature would be self-contradictory. It'd mean that the theist has given up on any pretensions that this being is subject to logic or laws of reality.

---

(July 15, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Godschild Wrote: 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.

Let me remind you of this - Not my problem.

@ genkaus, Oh I thought you all were going to prove to me that more than a few Christians say God is omnibenevolent, like I said I do not know any and I do know lots of Christians. I haven't researched it, but I would imagine that the Christians that do say God is omnibenevolent, have reasons like everyone will eventually be in heaven, or that hell is a place were souls are completely destroyed. I can see that they could use omnibenevolence to support that conclusion.

(July 16, 2013 at 1:52 am)Godschild Wrote: @ genkaus, Oh I thought you all were going to prove to me that more than a few Christians say God is omnibenevolent, like I said I do not know any and I do know lots of Christians. I haven't researched it, but I would imagine that the Christians that do say God is omnibenevolent, have reasons like everyone will eventually be in heaven, or that hell is a place were souls are completely destroyed. I can see that they could use omnibenevolence to support that conclusion.

I already have. Sufficient number of Christians believe in omnibenevolence for that to become a characteristic of Christian god within traditional Christianity and this fact is reflected in Wikipedia. Exactly what percentages or numbers that would mean is not something I care about.

(July 16, 2013 at 2:08 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 16, 2013 at 1:52 am)Godschild Wrote: @ genkaus, Oh I thought you all were going to prove to me that more than a few Christians say God is omnibenevolent, like I said I do not know any and I do know lots of Christians. I haven't researched it, but I would imagine that the Christians that do say God is omnibenevolent, have reasons like everyone will eventually be in heaven, or that hell is a place were souls are completely destroyed. I can see that they could use omnibenevolence to support that conclusion.

I already have. Sufficient number of Christians believe in omnibenevolence for that to become a characteristic of Christian god within traditional Christianity and this fact is reflected in Wikipedia. Exactly what percentages or numbers that would mean is not something I care about.

I saw no major revelation towards that in your post, still want more.

The Wikipedia article kinda shoots it down too. Omnibenevolence is a stupid word. God is good, that's as good as good gets.

I personally don't see where God does bad. God allows bad to happen in order to let good work.

and I would concur that God certainly doesn't reward evil, which is what some people would infer from the term omnibenevolence.

(July 16, 2013 at 2:35 am)Godschild Wrote:

(July 16, 2013 at 2:08 am)genkaus Wrote: I already have. Sufficient number of Christians believe in omnibenevolence for that to become a characteristic of Christian god within traditional Christianity and this fact is reflected in Wikipedia. Exactly what percentages or numbers that would mean is not something I care about.

I saw no major revelation towards that in your post, still want more.

It will not make a difference - since you have blinded yourself to any knowledge.

---

(July 16, 2013 at 2:52 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The Wikipedia article kinda shoots it down too. Omnibenevolence is a stupid word. God is good, that's as good as good gets.

I personally don't see where God does bad. God allows bad to happen in order to let good work.

and I would concur that God certainly doesn't reward evil, which is what some people would infer from the term omnibenevolence.

Shoot what down? The question here was whether god being omnibenevolent is a common belief held by Christians and according to the article, it is. I saw no statement to contrary.

What they infer from it or how they rationalize it is not something I'm bothered with.

I don't know that it's a 'belief'. Christians have used the term and the article points out the problems with it. Benevolent aka good, sure. The omni tag seems to be there just to make a matching set.

(July 16, 2013 at 5:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't know that it's a 'belief'. Christians have used the term and the article points out the problems with it. Benevolent aka good, sure. The omni tag seems to be there just to make a matching set.

There is simply no evidence of a benevolent god, while there is a
preponderance of evidence for and uncaring one - or none at all.

(July 16, 2013 at 7:33 am)Chas Wrote: - or none at all.

Haha!

Oops!

So you have precisely no input on the subject. Thanks for popping in!

In a nutshell:

God is... (pick at most two):
A. Omnipotent
B. Omniscient
C. Omnibenevolant

A+B: God knows of evil and can stop it but chooses not to.
B+C: God knows of evil and wishes to stop it but can't.
A+C: God can stop evil and wishes to but is not always aware.