It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God"

[cosmosdan]

@begbert2

No - omnibenevolence requires that all perspectives be considered. Whether we’re aware of God’s perspective is immaterial, the issue is whether he’s aware of ours - and if he’s aware that we have a perspective of our own (which he must, being omniscient) then he cannot possibly inflict trials upon us. If he’s omnibenevolent.

If our temporary physical forms are not the real us then he hasn’t inflicted any trials on us. He’s aware that we have a perspective and that it’s a false one.

I am different from King Graham, even though I control him. And I (and the game designers) put him through hell! And laugh at his misery!

because you know he is only a temporary false representation of you and the real you is not going through hell.

And what I’m saying is, you haven’t found a flaw in it. You’ve simply found one of the many, many models that it doesn’t apply to. Any diety that is not omnimax is not subject to the POE.

I’m saying the flaw is that beings who are not omnimax cannot effectively argue the logic of one that supposedly is. It begins with a logical contradiction. we can accurately say that from our human perspective God does not seem benevolent and that’s all.

Really, think about this. You are arguing that God doesn’t care about the suffering of man. Literally. You make a reasonable scenario for this occuring without God being a tyrant, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re saying, “That cancer of yours? God doesn’t care about that.” This is obviously contradictory with the concept of a benevolent diety who wishes the best for humans. And there’s no way around that - you simply can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I’m suggesting such a being would see the cancer for the temporary shadow of perception that it is, and that we as eternal spiritual beings will see that ourselves. Is the creator of a game offers certain experiences to the player being benevolant?

[cosmosdan]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Cosmo, the “human physical” perspective is all that matters. There is no other perpsctive which makes the human perspective not hurt. More importantly, there can be no logical purpose for it on any level. The argument from ignorance (“We don’t understand God’s reasons”) doesn’t work on the POE because there logically CAN’T be a reason. Suffering cannot be a means to an end, because an omnimax God does not NEED any means to any ends. He can instantly skip right to any goal (and should have never had any unfulfilled goal to begin with) without any scheme, or mechanism or plan or anything else. Any means to an end is unnecessary, therefore any means which includes suffering (and lets not trivialize human – or even animal – suffering by suggesting that it isn’t really suffering) is unnecessary. An omnimax God cannot allow ANY unnecessary suffering, therefore no omnimax God can exist. QED.

No one has ever solved the POE before, so I don’t know why people still bother to try.

because it’s there?

There can’t be a reason? why couldn’t the experience itself be the reason. The perception of duality and free will, good and evil etc.

I’m not trying to solve the POE to anyone’s satisfaction. I’m saying the mixing perspectives makes the whole argument a contradiction in logic from the start.

[hotflungwok]

@cosmosdan

Yes but the whole topic is speculation. Does God exist? The only answer is speculation.
I’m only pointing out the possible arguments starting from the premise .“if God is and is omnimax then” I’m not putting another layer in between. I’m saying if an eternal God is and our primary reality is eternal and spiritual rather than temporary and physical then arguing based on the temporary physical position is the flaw in the logic.

You’re adding needless speculation to the OPs. The OP did not say anything about what you’re talking about. He speculated that god exists, and said that if he does, then it can’t be this type of god. That’s it. In this discussion, ‘god exists’ is a given, ‘we are spiritual, this world is temporary, etc’ is not. You’re just hiding behind another layer of ‘god is unknowable’, and that argument doesn’t work here. You can’t say god is X, Y and Z, which is what has been done here, and then claim you can’t know god.

[cosmosdan]

@monavis

Your posts are your beliefs not proof.

{not sure what happened but this}

they’re neither and were not intended to be. That should have been clear.

try again,…or not.

{was meant as a response}

[begbert2]

@cosmosdan

If our temporary physical forms are not the real us then he hasn’t inflicted any trials on us. He’s aware that we have a perspective and that it’s a false one.

…Meaning, he doesn’t care about us, and allows us to suffer for the same reason we blow away demons in Doom - because they/we don’t matter, and because he doesn’t care about them/us.

Look, figure out what your theory is and then admit the implications - it’s either:

1. when we suffer, the spirits that animate us suffer, because they’re us
2. when we suffer, we suffer but the spirits that animate us don’t, because they’re not us, or
3. we don’t suffer.

Now, 3, is obviously nonsense - observably, people on earth suffer. Which leaves the first two. We can both agree that god isn’t omnibenevolent in case 1 (I hope) - but the thing is, he also isn’t omnibenevolent in case 2. He’s benevolent to the spirits, sure, but he’s not benevolent to us. Clearly. Obviously. And in this case you are arguing that our spirits are different people than us so him being benevolent to them is no defense of his omnibenevolence, any more than the fact that Saddam was nice to his sons made him a nice guy in general. Limited benevolence isn’t omnibenevolence.

This isn’t complicated and it doesn’t matter what perpsective you take on it - God doesn’t care about us in all three cases. I think you may be trying to argue otherwise by conflating the first two cases and arguing that our spirits are us, but still aren’t suffering - but that’s fallacious reasoning. If they have a totally different mind and memory and experence than me, they’re not me, and that’s that.

@cosmosdan

because you know he is only a temporary false representation of you and the real you is not going through hell.

So what? That doesn’t make me benevolent towards him. That makes him my chewtoy. There’s a difference.

@cosmosdan

I’m saying the flaw is that beings who are not omnimax cannot effectively argue the logic of one that supposedly is. It begins with a logical contradiction. we can accurately say that from our human perspective God does not seem benevolent and that’s all.

And I’m saying that’s nonsense - that’s a dodge of accusatory ignorance. “God works in mysterious ways which we mere mortals cannot possibly comprehend, so I don’t have to defend my illogical and self-contradictory claims about Him.”

Pure codswallop. There is no logical contradiction - I accounted for differing perspectives. It’s part of my argument. I’m just not willing to play along with you and ignore the implications of your position: you are arguing that god allows us to suffer, because, to him, we’re not real. Well, good for him. To me, people in Iraq aren’t real. So kill them all! Bwahahahahaha! And I’m still benevolent! To them! No really! Look at how benevolent to them I am as I blow them apart! Whee!

No. There’s nothing about being omnimax that makes you incomprehensible. In fact it makes you easier to understand - you are defined as having certain properties, so we know there are things you won’t do. If you’re benevolent you don’t do evil. If you’re omniscient you don’t lose at trivial pirsuit. If you’re omnipotent you can’t be defeated by iron chariots. It’s these things we know about omnimax things that let us make arguments about them.

@cosmosdan

I’m suggesting such a being would see the cancer for the temporary shadow of perception that it is, and that we as eternal spiritual beings will see that ourselves. Is the creator of a game offers certain experiences to the player being benevolant?

Good for the spirit - we’re not talking about him. We’re talking about God’s relationship to us. And the game creator is being benevolent to the creator at the expense of his game characters, to whom he is decidedly not being benevolent.

Look, the “life is a game” theory is a fairly sound one that gets around a lot of the problems with most god-theories. But it does it by turning all of humanity into punching bags that God doesn’t give two farts about. So nice theory that it is, it doesn’t ‘beat’ the POE. It concedes it and then claims that it’s not a bad thing. There’s a difference.