Omniscience Argument Against God's Existence

[bennyboy]

I think Omni arguments are bullshit, because they are addressing obviously bullshit definitions of God. If there IS something mystical pervading the universe, or responsible for its existence, it's not going to be comprehensible to Gomer the fuckwit or Mehmed the goatherd.

I'm not sure who's dumber, the ones who make these silly arguments, or the ones who keep bothering to explain why they fail, when it's so obvious.

Because some people don't understand why they fail.

Obvious to you, perhaps.

Also, discussion on omni-facets almost always become a definitional debate about what omni-facets mean (already evident on this thread within two pages).

If you say, "God can't be both all good and all powerful, because there is evil in the world," then there are really only two responses: 1) agree; 2) hide the simpler logic under complex semantics. The logic is so obvious that anyone who needs it explained isn't really worth debating.

Here's the semantic argument I would try if I were Christian:
"Good" is defined by the conformity of a behavior with a goal. If the goal is to enjoy a meal, for example, then a hamburger can be good. If the goal is to reduce the suffering of all organisms, it may not be. The judgment of behaviors as good or bad is as various as the goals people might have.

Now, let's say that there is a kind of goodness that is on so much higher a level of importance that it is worth all the suffering of every being in the universe to sustain it. Is allowing (or imposing) that suffering good, or bad? From the perspective of the sufferers, it is clearly bad, since their goal is not to suffer. But from the perspective of God, it may be clearly good. It may be that the suffering of a few can sustain the Universe, or that a few years' suffering will be rewarded by infinite bliss.

Should people worship a God whose concept of goodness includes their capacity (and tendency) to suffer? That I can't say.