God formally disproven

[FallentoReason]

And you have failed to define any of the terms in your argument, i.e. benevolence, perfect, evil. Until you do so, your argument is a useless collection of meaningless words.

Ok, let's define a few things then for the sake of discussion.

Omnibenevolence: the infinite desire to want to do good.

Perfect world: the optimal world reflecting the omnibenevolence of its creator.

Evil: describing an action or an individual's uncontrollable circumstance of life e.g. Kerb stomping a kitten will almost always be frowned upon as a wicked/evil action. Some people meeting their fate within weeks because of their arbitrary geographical 'starting point' is unjust and therefore shows life itself can be evil.

[Nine]

Kerb stomping a kitten will almost always be frowned upon as a wicked/evil action.

Thats fucked up.

[genkaus]

Evil: describing an action or an individual's uncontrollable circumstance of life

Umm, being born to a rich family is also an uncontrollable circumstance of life. Is that evil too?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Kerb stomping a kitten will almost always be frowned upon as a wicked/evil action. Some people meeting their fate within weeks because of their arbitrary geographical 'starting point' is unjust and therefore shows life itself can be evil.

Please support your opinion that these actions and circumstances are truly evil. You cannot just give examples of things you consider evil. You must state how it is possible to recognize that these actions and circumstances are, in fact, evil.

[The Grand Nudger]

God, evil, and morality are ALL "opinions" Chad. Opinions are being judged against each other in an attempt to find consistency. There is none. Please support your opinion that opinions cannot be weighed against each other (see how that works both ways)?

Omnibenevolence (something we made up to describe a host of attributes) in a creator god (something we made up for our origins/purpose/authority) is not consistent with evil (something we made up to describe a negative value judgement). Is this really that difficult for you to understand? It was sophistry when we conceived of it, and you're engaged in sophistry now to defend it.

[genkaus]

Actually, I have to support Chad's position here.

A formally positive claim was made : Proof of god's non-existence.

The proof provided was incomplete : It never assumed omnipotence on god's part and yet assumed he had the power to create the perfect world.

The proof did not specify what was meant by the terms: If good and evil are objective concepts then their objectivity was never established. If they are subjective concepts, then upon whose subjective judgment do they rely and why should that be considered standard.

The argument assumes facts not established: Such as evil exists.

Finally, the argument is logically invalid: The best possible world (with minimal possible evil) is not the same as a perfect world (no evil). Omnibenevolence - the infinite desire to do good, does not imply the infinite capacity to do good.


All the arguments leveled against common and similarly shoddy theistic arguments for the existence of god are valid against this proof of his non-existence as well. Turnabout is fair play.

[Mister Agenda]

And that's the core of the problem with theodicy. You just can't have omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence in the same package. One of them has to be weakened to support the others. You can have a very powerful and wise God who isn't omnipotent or omniscient but is omnibenevolent, and is doing the best it can (my favorite version). You can have an omnipotent or omniscient God who values some things (like free will, perhaps) more than benevolence. I recommend jettisoning omnipotence and omniscience, as they are mutually exclusive: an omnipotent being can do anything and an omniscient being can only do what it already knows it will do. Theodicy is clearly the results of generations of claiming 'my God is better than your God', which has resulted in a contradictory pile of omni-attributes. Drop 'omni' altogether and go with the most powerful and knowledgeable bloke in or out of the universe, with lots to keep track of in an existence that is necessarily imperfect.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wouldn't call it proof of gods nonexistence either (and I'm still not sure why proof of such is required), but I would call it a valid criticism of the common omni-everything god.

Come to think of it, that's a great question to ask of our resident theists. Is god just "giving it his all"? Or could he, at a whim, give more?

[genkaus]

I wouldn't call it proof of gods nonexistence either (and I'm still not sure why proof of such is required), but I would call it a valid criticism of the common omni-everything god.

However, it was claimed as such by the OP.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fantastic claims are made on both sides of the god issue. To what end we can only guess..lol.
(I'd also point out that "Chad's position" is one conveniently assumed by ommitting his denominations claims to attributes, again, sophistry, and I don't give a shit if he can tear someone's argument apart piece-meal, I want the whole fucking enchilada. His strategy is to make claims and then refuse to defend them -without further elaboration-, instead deferring attention by criticism of the claims of others. He isn't interested in positivism, he isn't interested in valid or sound arguments, he just likes making claims. We have our own little side discussion raging on which he refuses to even address, instead moving on to more fertile ground with each post. I'll be the one to mention that this is underhanded gaming of a system on his part each and every time he does it. This sort of argumentation is so tired and formulaic that I'd defend someone who claimed that peanut butter sandwiches were proof of the non-existence of god at this point.)