God formally disproven

[LastPoet]

As if something that hasn't been established at all needed to be disproven...

[genkaus]

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.)

Again, in Chad's defense, he isn't required to provide any justifications within the context of this thread, because he hasn't made any claims. If I recall correctly, you yourself have often taken this position with regards to creationists, with words to effect "I believe nothing. Now convince me that your position is true". We have to hold ourselves up to the same standard of proof we hold the theists to. Which includes the rule that the person making the claim bears the burden of proof. And anyone else may level logical criticisms against it without having to defend or even indicate his own beliefs. I looked through Chad's posts on this thread and he hasn't made any claim - only questioned the claims made by OP.

Besides, regarding his own positions, I have found him reasonable enough to provide adequate justification or concede them, as the case may be. So I don't think that any accusation of underhandedness is warranted here.

[The Grand Nudger]

He's made claims to a lack of foundation for criticism or judgement of subjective opinions due to a lack of absolute standards (for morality in this case specifically). That's assuming that there are such things in the first place. His criticism of the OP is as weak as the OP. I can't stand that shit. What you've found and what I've found are not neccesarrily equivalent. Would that be the position you're hoping to defend here Genk?

I'll call a con a con wherever I see it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

He's [Chad]made claims to a lack of foundation for criticism or judgement of subjective opinions due to a lack of absolute standards for morality (in this case specifically).

You almost got that right. What I meant to say is that you cannot use your own subjective opinions to refute the subjective opinions of others.

[genkaus]

He's made claims to a lack of foundation for criticism or judgement of subjective opinions due to a lack of absolute standards (for morality in this case specifically). That's assuming that there are such things in the first place. His criticism of the OP is as weak as the OP. I can't stand that shit. What you've found and what I've found are not neccesarrily equivalent.

I'll call a con a con wherever I see it.

Again, going through his posts, I do not find any reference or assumption of absolute standard of morality. What was questioned was what was provided - morality as a subjective standard of judgment.

Subjective opinions actually have no place in a formal proof, since they cannot be shown to be objectively true. So, if someone claims evil to be determined by subjective opinion, then the usage of that concept as a logical premise is incorrect. Whether or not it is actually a matter of subjective opinion is irrelevant. As I see it, Chad stayed well within the boundaries of reason. He criticized the usage of subjective morality as a premise for proof of god's non-existence while neither asserting nor denying the existence of objective morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

What needs to be refuted? I'm simply pointing out that omni-benevolence does not have any consistency with the rest of the fairy tale, I think I've made it clear that this is my opinion (a subjective one) several times. Since you feel the need to press the issue I'll do the same. Is your subjective opinion so much different from mine in this regard overall, or does it only break from mine when you begin to make apologies for the lord of the cosmos?

Q-"This is evil,does omni-benevolence incorporate evil"
A- "What is evil?"

Put yourself in the shoes of another, this is the same argument we hear day in and day out, verbatim. Its infuriating.

Q-"Can we order a pizza?"
A-"What is pizza?"

If someone points to something inconvenient, something less than nice, apologists would rather blather on about "the nature of not-nice" until everyone forgets the original point of contention than stand up and take one for their deity. Now, I;m willing to let this live forever as a difference of opinions, to me, god does not seem benevolent at all, let alone omni-benevolent, and if it's just your opinion (and nothing more) that he is benevolent, it could be left at that. Something tells me that this would be less than acceptable to you.

[Godscreated]

What makes you think God would live by your reasoning, full of holes is an understatement, your bucket can hold no water. Where do you find the word omnibenevolent, I see it nowhere in scripture, as a matter of fact I can not find benevolent or benevolence in scripture.

Then all I was taught at church was misguided as every second word I would hear about God is 'good'. 'God is good' was how we would mutually conclude a deep conversation about God with fellow Christians.

Where do all these blessings come from then?

God is good, your problem is in defining good. You look at good from your point of view which is like mine and all others, narrow at best. You are trying to hold God to a definition that is contained in our small minds, with God and his omniscient mind, knowing all things, He sees what will be perfect for his will. It's like trying to hold the universe to our standards of scientific understanding, then the universe breaks our rules, and we must adapt to understand what we have discovered and rethink what is true. The same with God the more we understand about Him the more we must rethink what we know about Him. This is why only through a personal relationship with Him can we begin to understand Him. God is good, it's outside of our understanding for the most part.

[Forsaken]

God is good, your problem is in defining good. You look at good from your point of view which is like mine and all others, narrow at best. You are trying to hold God to a definition that is contained in our small minds, with God and his omniscient mind, knowing all things, He sees what will be perfect for his will. It's like trying to hold the universe to our standards of scientific understanding, then the universe breaks our rules, and we must adapt to understand what we have discovered and rethink what is true. The same with God the more we understand about Him the more we must rethink what we know about Him. This is why only through a personal relationship with Him can we begin to understand Him. God is good, it's outside of our understanding for the most part.

GC, even if by our inferior standards (as humans), we have enough reasoning ability to see the evil nature of your god. Does not take a genius to figure that out. If god does not fit our definition of good, it is enough to discredit his "goodness" even if another definition of good may exist in another dimension.

[genkaus]

Is this addressed to me? I'm not sure.

What needs to be refuted? I'm simply pointing out that omni-benevolence does not have any consistency with the rest of the fairy tale, I think I've made it clear that this is my opinion (a subjective one) several times. Since you feel the need to press the issue I'll do the same. Is your subjective opinion so much different from mine in this regard overall, or does it only break from mine when you begin to make apologies for the lord of the cosmos?

No reference to any fairy-tale was made by Chad - so I'm not sure why would you assume his position in it.

Q-"This is evil,does omni-benevolence incorporate evil"
A- "What is evil?"

Put yourself in the shoes of another, this is the same argument we hear day in and day out, verbatim. Its infuriating.

Q-"Can we order a pizza?"
A-"What is pizza?"

The difference between the two situations is that pizza is an objective entity not a matter of opinion like evil (according to you). A better analogy would be

Q - "Can we order something delicious?"
A - "What is something delicious?"

A perfectly justified response.

---

God is good, your problem is in defining good. You look at good from your point of view which is like mine and all others, narrow at best. You are trying to hold God to a definition that is contained in our small minds, with God and his omniscient mind, knowing all things, He sees what will be perfect for his will. It's like trying to hold the universe to our standards of scientific understanding, then the universe breaks our rules, and we must adapt to understand what we have discovered and rethink what is true. The same with God the more we understand about Him the more we must rethink what we know about Him. This is why only through a personal relationship with Him can we begin to understand Him. God is good, it's outside of our understanding for the most part.

@Rythm.

Now this is a theist you can criticize to your hearts content. He makes assertions and claims about god and good left and right without providing an iota of support for them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Heheh, nah, that one wasn't at you, but I appreciate the comments regardless. Lets ask Chad here if he thinks evil is an objective or absolute though, and see what washes up eh?

(So does Chad, do a post search, and I treat them as interchangeable characters on a revolving door cast policy. Just what claims about god can be made -with- an iota of support btw? I can criticize any theists (or atheists, or deists..and the reverse is also true) ideas, proposals, and conversational mannerisms to my hearts content regardless.)