Why should omnibenevolence mean benevolent toward humans?

Clearly to me, talking mainstream Christianity, God is not concerned with the physical well being of humans. Therefore to build a premise on that wouldn't be addressing the xtian God.

(August 17, 2010 at 5:43 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Captain Scarlet,

So now God is perfect AND a personal creator of the universe? Any other unstated premises you would like to add to your argument?

1. Theism is simply a belief in God/god/ or gods
2. A god that is indifferent can be conceived
3. Therefore evolution does not prove atheism

Rhizo

You asked a question, which I answered. You will find it is well understood. Infact I do not lay claim to the definitions which are straight from philosophical discourse. Not sure what 'unstated' premises are; they are clearly stated!

To your points

1. Nope. Theism is a claim that there is a personal creator. Deism and pantheism also claim that there may be god/s
2. Yes in deism in particular, not in theism
3. Correct the argument is inductive ie probabilistic not deductive ie conclusive. So my claim is not the it proves atheism but that atheism is more likely

be a good idea to read more carefully, get your facts right .... oh and I take it you have retracted your claim that my argument was a fallacy from incredulity. If you need to check it out just google logical fallacies.

You

Captain Scarlet,

No, I do not retract my claim that your original argument is fallacious. My syllogism addresses your new argument directed toward theism.

Here is the web definition of "theism":

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=...d=0CBIQkAE

Deism and pantheism are types of theism.

Rhizo

(August 17, 2010 at 5:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why should omnibenevolence mean benevolent toward humans?

Clearly to me, talking mainstream Christianity, God is not concerned with the physical well being of humans. Therefore to build a premise on that wouldn't be addressing the xtian God.

Not my understanding. An all loving god should do exactly that. Again what is the use of being an all powerful, all loving god who seeks fellowship with free willed individuals, if he indifferently sits back over billions of years waiting for them to evolve from slime and watching all the suffering that evolution inflicts on those lifeforms. Why choose an inefficient process so that we had to wait 4bn years to emerge.

(August 17, 2010 at 6:09 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote:

(August 17, 2010 at 5:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why should omnibenevolence mean benevolent toward humans?

Clearly to me, talking mainstream Christianity, God is not concerned with the physical well being of humans. Therefore to build a premise on that wouldn't be addressing the xtian God.

Not my understanding. An all loving god should do exactly that. Again what is the use of being an all powerful, all loving god who seeks fellowship with free willed individuals, if he indifferently sits back over billions of years waiting for them to evolve from slime and watching all the suffering that evolution inflicts on those lifeforms. Why choose an inefficient process so that we had to wait 4bn years to emerge.

Yet another argument from incredulity.

Oh dear then you are as stubborn as you are confused. Try the encyclopedia of philosophy which is more authoritative than your google search

the·ism (thē'ĭz'əm)
"Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."

Your understanding of the fallacy of incredulity is nonexistent and your syllogism is extremely confused. Formally it is invalid as premise 1 is wrong (see earlier refutation) and your conclusion does not follow from your premises. I can't help thinking your first response was a little bit too self satisfied and you've been slowly digging yourself into a hole ever since you were called out.

(August 17, 2010 at 6:46 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote:
Oh dear then you are as stubborn as you are confused. Try the encyclopedia of philosophy which is more authoritative than your google search

the·ism (thē'ĭz'əm)
"Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."

Your understanding of the fallacy of incredulity is nonexistent and your syllogism is extremely confused. Formally it is invalid as premise 1 is wrong (see earlier refutation) and your conclusion does not follow from your premises. I can't help thinking your first response was a little bit too self satisfied and you've been slowly digging yourself into a hole ever since you were called out.

This post brings nothing new to the table. Reasserting your beliefs do not make them true. I see no hole but I do see moving goalposts.

Quote:Why would god select evolution as a means of creating new species and having them adapt over time. Evolution is a massively wasteful process creating many damaging mutations which leads to unecessary suffering in the lifeforms it works upon? Either evolution is false, which seems unlikely given all available evidence (here come the fundies!), or god is uncaring and wasteful of resource in a finite universe. Evolution is more likely on the basis that atheism is true.

How so? That makes no sense. It USED to be a tool of atheists but prety much since Vatican 2, the majority of CHRISTIANS accept evolution as being pretty much a fact.

If one accepts evolution, they do have some questions (since most Christians believe the God holds their hand) about God they will need to answer. But on the whole it doesnt prove atheism.
It could prove more of a Deistic view on God or something.

(August 17, 2010 at 6:46 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: [size=small]
Oh dear then you are as stubborn as you are confused. Try the encyclopedia of philosophy which is more authoritative than your google search

the·ism (thē'ĭz'əm)
"Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."

Did you read the definition you posted? It supports Rhizo, not you. You said theism is the belief in a personal creator; this definition says "especially", which means that the belief in a personal God is not the only belief covered by theism, just one of the main ones.

To take another example: "I like muffins, especially blueberry ones" does not mean that I only like blueberry muffins; on the contrary, it means I like muffins (the first part), but have a preference for blueberry ones.

So whilst theism may (in most cases) mean "belief in a personal creator God", it is by no means the only definition of the word. Theism also means a general belief in gods, and thus deism is a subset of theism.

(August 17, 2010 at 6:09 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote:

(August 17, 2010 at 5:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why should omnibenevolence mean benevolent toward humans?

Clearly to me, talking mainstream Christianity, God is not concerned with the physical well being of humans. Therefore to build a premise on that wouldn't be addressing the xtian God.

Not my understanding. An all loving god should do exactly that. Again what is the use of being an all powerful, all loving god who seeks fellowship with free willed individuals, if he indifferently sits back over billions of years waiting for them to evolve from slime and watching all the suffering that evolution inflicts on those lifeforms. Why choose an inefficient process so that we had to wait 4bn years to emerge.

Ok. You need to show how suffering equates to (God being) unloving. Again we aren't knowledgeable enough to judge God's actions. Our history defines us, and any deviation in that history would make something else & not us.