Omniscience and omnibenevolence

[Immanuel Can]

Because that's the foundation. Everything begins with the realization that there are not many "gods," and that there is but one, who is objectively real, and has a particular and personal nature. Step one is: there is a God, and not just any God. That immediately narrows the field, in the extreme.

Assuming that there is good reason to think there is at least one god,

then why one god, why your god and your revelation?

Now you're on to a question that has to be answered comparatively, if you're going to answer it. So that goes to my second method: you have to read and compare.

People are obviously arguing that the characteristics of your god ... omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence ... are at odds with what is observed in the world.

And so far, if you've been tracking, I've been pointing out why those three terms are not nuanced enough to be right, and why the appearance of such being "at odds" is not reliable.

[Gary Childress]

"Mystic union" is said to be ineffable.

that just means, "Anybody can get stoned."

Was the Buddha just "stoned"? Perhaps Jesus also?

[iambiguous]

Because that's the foundation. Everything begins with the realization that there are not many "gods," and that there is but one, who is objectively real, and has a particular and personal nature. Step one is: there is a God, and not just any God. That immediately narrows the field, in the extreme.

Assuming that there is good reason to think there is at least one god,

then why one god, why your god and your revelation?

People are obviously arguing that the characteristics of your god ... omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence ... are at odds with what is observed in the world.

Which is one reason to reject your god as the one correct god.

Roll the dice here, IC.

Link him to those videos you linked me to. The ones, as I recall, you claimed warrant the belief that there is evidence that the Christian God resides in Heaven analogous to videos demonstrating that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

He might be willing to watch them all.

[iambiguous]

What human beings appear to see as the consequence of all the links above...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...is, as mere mortals, no match for what your loving just and merciful God sees. Make it all about "epistemic limitations" with those like Astro Cat instead of flat out admitting that just like all of the other Christians, you really only have God's "mysterious ways" to fall back on.

And then you can always come back with, "so, Mr. Atheist, prove that those links are not as a result of a loving, just and merciful God's mysterious ways."

Again, though, not to worry. I don't expect anything from you that is actually more sophisticated. I'm still basically in entertainment mode with you until you provide me with that video.

Or at least something -- anything -- in the way of an explanation as to why you don't.

That's self-evidently true.

You're surely not going to claim you have omniscience, are you? That's the only alternative you've got left.

So no, nobody's going to believe that.

But I'm not the one who brought into existence all of the terrible consequences embedded in the links above. That would be your own loving, just and merciful Christian God. He is the one that many Christians claim is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Not me. I'm merely noting that aside from existential leaps of faith to Him and His "mysterious ways", there do not appear [to me] to be arguments that reconcile the world as it is with a Creator said to be omnibenevolent.

More to some like a sadistic monster.

On the contrary, No God and it's all just the "brute facticity" embedded in an essentially meaningless world.

Quite so. And that leaves you...where?

Hey, I'm the first to admit just how ghastly the consequences of that are. I only suggest that even you yourself know there is not any substantive proof that the Christian God and not one of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...One true Paths is the One True Path. I mean, how naive do you have to be to believe that the Christian God exists merely because it says so in the Christian Bible?

But, again, no doubt about it, to the extent that you are able to convince yourself that He does exist, you can then sustain that comfort and consolation all the way to the grave. You've got me there, I agree.

As long as you accept that for all the other paths above your own soul is lost.

I disagree. I think anybody who makes an honest search will also very quickly realize I'm right about that. But that's for you to do, not me. I can't do it for you.

Right. Back to you claiming that the evidence is there in those videos and in the Christian Bible, but never actually noting evidence that can be confirmed substantively by others.

But, okay, leaving aside the videos and the Christian Bible and noting just how much is at stake on both sides of the grave in regard to mere mortals getting on the One True Christian Path -- objective morality/immortality and salvation -- what is the strongest evidence by far that the Christian God does in fact exists?

And forget about me, what evidence would you provide for, say, henry quirk? Or Astro Cat?

But if you want more, track my conversation with AstroCat. She's obviously extremely smart and insightful, and you might learn what a good conversation looks like from her. We are on different sides, and she's no slouch; but we are managing to talk without pettiness, grandstanding or other forms of unreasonable behaviour. She's great: I'm finding conversation with you extremely low-level and tedious, by comparison. So that's where I'll invest my limited time and energies, I think.

Above I noted that I am really not interested in the sort of exchange you have with her. That it works for the two of you is fine. But I am far more interested in taking syllogisms like this...

P1:All unicorns are pixies.
P2: Pixies only eat ambrosia.
C: Therefore, unicorns only eat ambrosia.

And focusing in more on how technical premises and conclusions regarding the Christian God and "gratuitous suffering" are applicable to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events


Just for the record, here is an exchange from the Christianity thread, when we first started exploring the distinction between a leap of faith to God and the belief that God does in fact exist:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33261&p=575172&hili ... os#p575172

Also, here is a link to the videos themselves: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

17 of them now.

[Dubious]

Well, your answer should be "No," for sure, of course...but since you posed the question, I can't imagine what you were thinking, then. The existence of any number of wrong answers doesn't suggest there's no right answer. So your rejoinder -- if that's what it was -- doesn't even make sense.

However, feel free to expand on your objection, I guess.

1. If there is a God, then I doubt it's the God of the Hebrews...

Because?

...because it's the god of the Hebrews and no other as, for example, all those he gave orders to exterminate. Being a god does not consist in being only in charge of a small group the god has explicitly chosen for the honor. Actually, it's the other way around; it's the Jews who chose.

Quite simple really, though I'm sure it doesn't make any sense to you!

[Dubious]

"Mystic union" is said to be ineffable.

that just means, "Anybody can get stoned."

Was the Buddha just "stoned"? Perhaps Jesus also?

Wouldn't doubt it! Being stoned may facilitate enlightenment. Why shouldn't that be true when those supposedly not stoned can believe anything so insane as thinking that the OT god is GOD or that Adam & Eve are real.

[phyllo]

Because that's the foundation. Everything begins with the realization that there are not many "gods," and that there is but one, who is objectively real, and has a particular and personal nature. Step one is: there is a God, and not just any God. That immediately narrows the field, in the extreme.

Assuming that there is good reason to think there is at least one god,

then why one god, why your god and your revelation?

Now you're on to a question that has to be answered comparatively, if you're going to answer it. So that goes to my second method: you have to read and compare.

People are obviously arguing that the characteristics of your god ... omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence ... are at odds with what is observed in the world.

And so far, if you've been tracking, I've been pointing out why those three terms are not nuanced enough to be right, and why the appearance of such being "at odds" is not reliable.

Well certainly, YOU are not going to answer.

I'm going back to ignoring you.

[promethean75]

So what's the verdict in this thread? Are we suffering gratuitously or not? And where is Astro Cat aka Fast and Furious?

[attofishpi]

So what's the verdict in this thread?

God is not omnibenevolent.

[promethean75]

that's the worst kind of god there is, mate. an all powerful god that is the cause of all things but also an asshole. this translates to: i could have snapped my fingers and put everyone in heaven at the beginning and skipped the whole test on earth thing, and i didn't... but it gets worse. I'm also going create evil, know when and will u will commit it (becuz I'm the prima causa), and then punish u for it.

now a much cooler god would be one that wuzzint an all powerful determiner, so couldn't be held responsible for evil. but we want the main boss god, so if it's 'gods all the way down' instead of turtles, we're shit out of luck. 

You're position - that god is not omnibenevolent - wouldn't fly with orthodox Christianity becuz what evil happens is justified as being somehow necessary by the Christians. And becuz god is good (they reason), he must be omnibenevolent de facto.

[attofishpi]

You're position - that god is not omnibenevolent - wouldn't fly with orthodox Christianity becuz what evil happens is justified as being somehow necessary by the Christians. And becuz god is good (they reason), he must be omnibenevolent de facto.

Any Christian that believes in the concept of HELL is an idiot if they think God is omnibelevolent.

[promethean75]

okay but what is 'good'? whatever god wills, or does god will what he does becuz it's good? in other words, is what is good good by god's fiat, or does the good exist beyond and above god, in which case he is not the progenitor of the good, but merely acts in accordance with it.

if the first option, sending people to hell for eternity would be a good thing becuz that's what god wants.

so how do u square your reasoning that christians are idiots becuz they believe god is omnibenevolent, with option one?

we're getting into real philosophy and logic here, fishpi. like some smokey basement type shit. your days of techo-superstitious new age esoteric science fiction digital creationism theology are over. we on some straight ancient greek logic shit now, mate.

[promethean75]

... and the big problem with option two is that when we decide that god is not the final arbiter of what is good - that he merely acts in accordance with what is good - we could end up deciding that god is an asshole becuz we can't square suffering for eternity in hell with good reason; we know people are capable of feeling regret and remorse and can't imagine never being given a second chance, etc. it doesn't seem like a good god would ever do that given what we understand about ourselves and our capacity for experiencing genuine remorse. what if three weeks into hell you're like damn this sucks and now that I think about it, i shouldn't have done x and y and I'm truly sorry i did. it'll never happen again', etc.

see eternal hell wouldn't make sense. so either the christian god exists and hell is good (option one by fiat) or there is no ultimate law giver god and something greater - the good, if it exists at all - exists independently of god's existence.

[attofishpi]

If you want a logic debate i'm all good for it - I do program compooters so should be ok.

However if you are wanting to continue, then state the options - number them and less waffle - what you are stating is rather subjective to be determined concisely using logic.

I often accuse God as being pure evil (from experience of it since 1997) so how "Christians" that have never experienced ITS wrath and indeed Hell can consider God omnibenevolent - well its a contradiction in logic. You can't consider God omnibenevolent where Hell is concerned, hence why I consider anyone that ascerts God as omibenevolent while believing in Hell as idiots.
Note however, that on a survey of Christians re the concept of Hell, the majority stated they didn't believe in such a place.

So yes, please be more concise and number the options (rather than just vomitting waffle at me )

[promethean75]

so becuz u think hell sucks and god is mean, he isn't omnibenevolent.

also you're saying what u think is good - staying out of hell - trumps what god thinks is good - putting u in hell.

all this hinges on what u think the 'good' is, mate. I'm not making waffles here. this is sirius biznizz.