Disproof of Omnibenevolence

[fr0d0]

Technically monotheistic gods must be atheists by definition. They must lack a belief in a god or gods (if they exist of course).

You think they don't know they are God??

[Captain Scarlet]

Technically monotheistic gods must be atheists by definition. They must lack a belief in a god or gods (if they exist of course).

You think they don't know they are God??

Of course such a being must be self aware, that's not the point. A theist is someone who believes in a higher power ie god/gods. By definition a monotheistic god must lack such a belief in a higher power. In the same way he won't offer up the lords prayer to himself.

[Darth]

Why can't I believe in a deity who does actually believe there is an even higher power than itself but is deluded? There's no law against it (In this country anyway...)!

[fr0d0]

@ Captain Scarlet: hmm... believing in God, or him believing in himself is the point in question I think. Breaking it down to roles then of course God's role would be different to lesser being that believed in him. God [in this assumption] beleives in God [himself]. He knows of no higher power : his attributes already reach limits defining those. There would have to be a new set of attributes to Gods God.

@Stue: hey dude you go for it

[Captain Scarlet]

@ Captain Scarlet: hmm... believing in God, or him believing in himself is the point in question I think. Breaking it down to roles then of course God's role would be different to lesser being that believed in him. God [in this assumption] beleives in God [himself]. He knows of no higher power : his attributes already reach limits defining those. There would have to be a new set of attributes to Gods God.

It is only the point if you wish to redefine theism and atheism. A fairer challenge would be that it is a category error and neither theism nor atheism applies to god. But either way he is not a theist.

It is incoherent to state that "his attributes already reach limits defining those". His attributes are said to be unlimited, thus never reaching a limit, what are you getting at here?

[fr0d0]

1. Nobody mentioned "theist" but you did mention that he must be atheist: which is wrong no matter how you translate it. "lacks belief in god or gods" is nothing like being a god and realising that. By introducing "theist" you are demoting God to a mortal underling, something new to this discussion. If God is God then, from his omniscience he knows who he is. Therefore he cannot "lack belief in god or gods". Unless you wish to dissect the word 'belief' ...which would be pedantic.

2. If the attributes of God are omniscient/potent/present where is there room for a superior to God?

[Captain Scarlet]

Which is why it is more coherent to argue that it is a category error than try to redefine the terms. God does not believe in a higher power by definition, that would make him definitionally an atheist. The mere fact he believes in his own existence, does not redraw those definitions. If an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god (higher power), then god is an atheist wrt his own existence. I am not trying to ascribe any human properties to god in doing so. That is the domain of theism.

There is no room left for a higher power to god on the omni terms drawn by theism. Hence the above definitional issues. Why did you state "his attributes already reach limits defining those". It is my understanding of the god concept that his powers are unlimited?

[The Grand Nudger]

Taking god to be some pervasive fabric of reality bullshit that seems to be so cosmopolitan recently as absolute gospel; there is no point in dividing the identity of the divine into god and satan. Ultimately the serpent is only an extension of the will of their bullshit god. Arguing that god is the creator and sustainer of all things and then positing that somehow there is a devil who is even capable of taking action against the will of this sustaining force is ridiculous.

Satan is only a christian invention in the specifics of this particular narrative. Most religions have a a dump for all the nasty shit that they don't want their deity taking credit for. Satan is the cosmic scapegoat, in a scapegoating religion. They neither invented nor expanded upon the proposition of this supernatural creature. They simply absorbed it. Someone has to kill the cattle and make men's penises shrivel, and it sure as hell isn't going to be their loving celestial father now is it?

(It couldn't possibly be that the faithful is a terrible rancher or impotent, it's always black magic. That's how religions founded on ignorance, by ignorant people, and extolling the virtues of ignorance roll.)

[fr0d0]

---

Which is why it is more coherent to argue that it is a category error than try to redefine the terms. God does not believe in a higher power by definition, that would make him definitionally an atheist. The mere fact he believes in his own existence, does not redraw those definitions. If an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god (higher power), then god is an atheist wrt his own existence. I am not trying to ascribe any human properties to god in doing so. That is the domain of theism.

There is no room left for a higher power to god on the omni terms drawn by theism. Hence the above definitional issues. Why did you state "his attributes already reach limits defining those". It is my understanding of the god concept that his powers are unlimited?

---

Gah! There you go moving those goal posts again Cap'n!

Atheist referred to deity, now it refers to higher power.

God knows he's the highest power if he knows that he is God. How couldn't he? And you didn't explain how omni = not quite omni. How does omni =/= unlimited?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Here's a straightforward experiment to use against an omni-benevolent deity argument you can try out for yourself that effectively counters every apologetic claim that 'god moves in mysterious ways' and allows suffering so as not to 'violate free will' etc etc or some 'master plan' and so on.

Simply say: "I wish I were never born"

An infinitely loving all-compassionate being should never have allowed that above statement to ever be conceived in the mind, let alone uttered aloud. Desiring non-existence and/or an end to your life thwarts absolute moral goodness absolutely.

Ergo, an all-loving god definitely does not exist. Or am I wrong?

Great example.