Yes, the closing of that thread was a temporary accident and has since been fixed. Long before the creation of this thread, as it happens.

Okay. This one's now different, about the basics of what we should show before we can take omnibenevolence seriously. None of the three kinds of world, perfect, best possible, or better than nothing, itself implies omnibenevolence is operant, only that it's still a contender in the ring. If Pyrrho is correct that we're in a "worse than nothing," then I'm lost. Maybe we would switch to "better than the worst possible world," as many worlds might be worse than none. Or even "the best of all worlds that are worse than nothing."

However, replies to the other (now open) thread should go there & not here, I suppose.  

I don't know what the best possible universe would be like. It has a great deal of subjectivity of course. The Star Trek reference is interesting because that is one hell of a good universe if you are a thinking being. The universe according to Christianity is great if you are a sheep. We are not sheep.

Neither universe is real but if I could choose one, it would be Star Trek by a long shot - as long as I'm nowhere near the Borg.

(May 15, 2015 at 6:19 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Kirk is a human, with finite capabilities.  God is supposedly omnipotent, and if God were in Kirk's situation, God could save the woman's life and then God could simply persuade Roosevelt to enter the war when it pleases God to do so (or could just wipe out Hitler himself, which would be effortless for an omnipotent being).

[Concerning] ... the idea that there is another world called "heaven" that is better than this one.  If this is the best of all possible worlds, heaven is logically impossible.

I don't like the whole "omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent" thing either. It comes from the Middle Ages as thinkers newly possessed of more powerful logical tools began pushing these tools to the limit, without regard to the various complexities, contradictions, and paradoxes that can result. The truth is, we cannot conceive of an omniscient & onmipotent being, or give any meaningful statements about what such a being might or might not do. So, the Star Trek ditty is a bit silly. However, it's also unreasonable to presume that a god would just wipe away all the things we don't like and leave us with a bliss of our own fancy.

The concept of deity as Sugar Daddy is childish. There's little reason to think that deity should operate that way, or even that everything which is "good" is also pleasing and painless. This kind of emotionalism is also engaged in by fundamentalist church groups, and appeared in kid's books I used to read in Lutheran school where God just "fixes" everything as it happens. I remember reading a thing about how "they had miracles in bible days but we don't have them now" because "we can go to the supermarket" for our needs and they couldn't. I was only 7 then and didn't realize how stupid that idea is.  

I agree with you that if a heaven exists, then the position that we live in the best possible world becomes much harder to defend. The only counter I'm aware of is that heaven is a reward which has to be earned. Many people who accept the notion of a "benevolent" world do accept the existence of merit in such a world. Bliss and reward aren't just handed to everyone unconditionally. Indeed, if they were, the rewards would become meaningless. (That's a criticism applied to grade inflation where everyone gets an A.)

Meh, the counter doesn't actually address the statement....so calling it a counter is a bit of an exaggeration, I think.

I don't know why anyone needs testing or rewarding. He's just fucking around for his own amusement. Well, I'm not amused.

-Additionally, regarding childish thoughts attached to god claims...I think that if we went through and made an itemized list of childish things which might be attached to the periphery of god, we'd end up touching on just about every god claim ever made.  So, there's that.  /shrugs

(May 16, 2015 at 8:57 am)Rhythm Wrote: Meh, the counter doesn't actually address the statement....so calling it a counter is a bit of an exaggeration, I think.

(May 16, 2015 at 9:01 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't know why anyone needs testing or rewarding. He's just fucking around for his own amusement. Well, I'm not amused.

I think the question of whether merit, or earned status, exists in a "benevolent" world is quite legitimate. Americans generally consider "advancing from humble beginnings to success through hard work" a great virtue. Sure, the Horatio Alger myth glosses over a lot of the rigid class structure actually seen in the USA, yet a society without incentives stagnates. As eastern Europe did back in the Warsaw Pact days, when the shelves in the store were all empty, except that one bin that had a glut of shoddy boots.

Because I'm not an authority on God, I don't know whether deity tests people or not. In some theologies, it does, in others, it refrains. Some of the tests which have been postulated over the years are clearly petty or cruel. The truth of that still doesn't affect how we humans do seem to get stronger and more competent by overcoming challenges. We don't get physically fit by sitting on our rumps. Which means I'd better get out for my walk today, as soon as it stops raining....