(April 7, 2014 at 4:09 pm)coldwx Wrote: 1.

This is usually followed up with a point 2, but what the heck, who cares!

Quote:So you are saying there does not exist a all-good, all-loving god?

No, I'm saying there does not exist an omnibenevolent god. As you noted yourself, "all-good" can be argued based on greater good.

Quote:The one christians believe in is just a sadist then.

I disagree.

Quote:Awesome, we agree and I guess no more conversation on this OP is needed. No reason to look to him for objective morality then.

I didn't say anything about objective morality. You're arguing against a stereotype.

The point was I needed no point 2...that was the joke since I said we agreed.

Um, I don't understand this at all. Please explain. Omni=all, benevolent=good. All-good. Not really ambiguous. And now you are arguing for a greater good?

I was not arguing anything, I was making a statement.

Quote:Um, I don't understand this at all. Please explain. Omni=all, benevolent=good. All-good. Not really ambiguous.

Benevolent does not equal good. It would be benevolent for a judge to sentence a serial killer to eat a piece of chocolate cake and go on his way, but few people would think it's good of the judge to do that.

Quote:And now you are arguing for a greater good?

No, I'm noting that can be argued. My point is that a creator doesn't necessarily see the avoidance of suffering in his creation as his primary goal. It's an unsupported assertion loaded into the critic's argument. What gives it effect is that many Christians make a knee-jerk reaction in favor of omnibenevolence without thinking it through. Once you take omnibenevolence off the table, there's not much of an argument left.

I think you know quite well the meaning of omnibenevolent and it seems as if you are deliberately being obtuse. As a son of a pastor, I know full well that this notion is a foundation of faith for many christians. The anecdote you use does not persuade me since I believe it to be on unequal footing. You say on the one had that we can't compare human morals to god's but then make an anecdotal comparison. And it seems to me God does do this in that a serial killer can receive eternal life simply by truly believing and repenting. So for me it would be like going into court and simply saying "I am sorry" and then you go free. Bad analogy for me personally.


So it can be argued but you acknowledge it's failure as an argument? I am having trouble seeing a difference from the way you have described not seeing the avoidance and therefore do not see it as unsupported. I would agree there is a knee jerk reaction so I am happy to see you have thought it through...I do not agree that there is not much of an argument. By the way I do enjoy these conversations. I am new here and this is exactly why I joined. Thanks for thoughtful discussions even though we disagree.

For the record I completely concur with alphas statement on benevolence. I also don't regard that as correctly applied as an attribute of God.

(April 7, 2014 at 5:07 pm)coldwx Wrote: I think you know quite well the meaning of omnibenevolent and it seems as if you are deliberately being obtuse. As a son of a pastor, I know full well that this notion is a foundation of faith for many christians.

I don't defend the beliefs of other Christians very often. If you have a Biblical argument, please present it.

Quote:The anecdote you use does not persuade me since I believe it to be on unequal footing. You say on the one had that we can't compare human morals to god's but then make an anecdotal comparison.

I didn't say that we can't compare human morals to god's. I said that our morals regarding suffering are not unlike god's, and that the problem is that we have an inaccurate view of our own morality as judged by our actions.

Quote:And it seems to me God does do this in that a serial killer can receive eternal life simply by truly believing and repenting. So for me it would be like going into court and simply saying "I am sorry" and then you go free. Bad analogy for me personally.

The difference is that Christ paid the penalty for him. You can disagree with substitution if you like, but Biblically, no, the punishment was carried out.

Quote:So it can be argued but you acknowledge it's failure as an argument?

No, I just don't use it because it's been done to death.

Quote:I am having trouble seeing a difference from the way you have described not seeing the avoidance and therefore do not see it as unsupported. I would agree there is a knee jerk reaction so I am happy to see you have thought it through...I do not agree that there is not much of an argument. By the way I do enjoy these conversations. I am new here and this is exactly why I joined. Thanks for thoughtful discussions even though we disagree.

Once you take away omnibenevolence, there's no contradiction in attributes, and so no POE or POS. You may decide you wouldn't want to worship such a being, but that's not a problem for me, and in fact weakens the POS/POE in that they're shown to be justifications rather than causes.

Anyone who actually reads the bible knows that the fictional god character is anything but benevolent. To state otherwise is either to not have read the bible, have worn rose-colored glasses while reading it, or be completely lying for the sake of saving face.

(April 7, 2014 at 4:44 pm)alpha male Wrote: Benevolent does not equal good. It would be benevolent for a judge to sentence a serial killer to eat a piece of chocolate cake and go on his way, but few people would think it's good of the judge to do that.

The problem I have with any of these analogies involving humans is that humans have a lot of qualities that God typically does not, and vice versa. For example: the judge did not create the legal framework in which s/he works, has no foreknowledge of the crime, and presumably no ability to stop it.

God has options that judges do not. Also, doctors, parents, and police officers (other common analogies I see). If God is great, these analogies seem to be poor. If the analogy is good, then it seems to explain that God has a limitations like people.

(April 8, 2014 at 1:33 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:

(April 7, 2014 at 4:44 pm)alpha male Wrote: Benevolent does not equal good. It would be benevolent for a judge to sentence a serial killer to eat a piece of chocolate cake and go on his way, but few people would think it's good of the judge to do that.

The problem I have with any of these analogies involving humans is that humans have a lot of qualities that God typically does not, and vice versa.

I didn't make an analogy between people and god there Robby, I made an illustration contrasting the definitions of good and benevolent.

(April 8, 2014 at 1:33 pm)RobbyPants Wrote:

(April 7, 2014 at 4:44 pm)alpha male Wrote: Benevolent does not equal good. It would be benevolent for a judge to sentence a serial killer to eat a piece of chocolate cake and go on his way, but few people would think it's good of the judge to do that.

The problem I have with any of these analogies involving humans is that humans have a lot of qualities that God typically does not, and vice versa. For example: the judge did not create the legal framework in which s/he works, has no foreknowledge of the crime, and presumably no ability to stop it.

God has options that judges do not. Also, doctors, parents, and police officers (other common analogies I see). If God is great, these analogies seem to be poor. If the analogy is good, then it seems to explain that God has a limitations like people.

It's a dumb fucking analogy anyway. A judge who lets a serial killer back on the street is not benevolent.

A judge who murders babies in his free time, when he's not releasing rapists and killers into the streets to do his bidding is also not benevolent.

But if the judge is God, it's a-ok.