Benevolent means loving towards others. Omnibenevolent is the most loving that is logically possible - just as omnipotent is the most powerful that is logically possible.
There are no contradictions in a benevolent, potent god, just an ominbenevolent, omnipotent one.
There is even Biblical evidence against omnipotence - remember God couldn’t help the Israelites in one battle because their enemies had iron chariots!
Wrong. Are you listening to yourself? I’ve said nothing about a specific mechanism. That’s not necessary. All that is necessary is to think instead of shutting down your thoughts at “I choose.” Once you start asking "Who is this “I” and why does it choose how it chooses distinct from other "I"s the whole edifice nonsense collapses in on itself. It cannot be sustained.
You are simply employing the logical fallacy of equivocation: swapping out one meaning of the word “free” for another.
Yes, we make choices. All the time. But it makes no logical sense to refer to these choices as “free” outside of the context of immediate external coercion, which is clearly not what we are talking about when we talking about “free will” in a theological debate. What are you saying that they free FROM? Yourself? How could that possibly be and yet still have the choices be in any sense your own?
Heavens to betsy: don’t you see how utterly, bizarrely irrational that idea is? If that were true, then there is no personal responsibility. There is no connection between a choice and any particular chooser. Anything could be chosen. That’s not freedom, that’s randomness!
So you admit that there is some underlying means in which it works? That’s all I was asking. Because once you’ve conceded that, then you’ve condeded that talking of free will as distinct from someone’s underlying existing character is sheer nonsense.
That’s amusingly ironic, but beside the point. You cannot define “free will” in any serious manner, and yet you want to cast it into a debate as as incoherent excuse for why a being with the power to simply not make causal situations or beings that favor evil would do so anyway. The excuse “because then they would have no free will” has been demonstrated to be logically incoherent. If you disagree, then define your terms. Explain what free will is. Explain what role it plays in the making of a choice. Meet your burden of proof. Or at least attempt to. But I guarantee you will continue to simply trip yourself up with your own words and concessions.
The difference for the Big Bang is that time itself began with the universe - so our usual ideas of something before something else causing it are no longer valid.
That’s what he means by always existed, I think. Not back to infinite time, but as long as time itself has existed.
This is true for most things in the macro world, but in the quantum world it is not true. Quantum foam springs into being without being contingent on anything - except perhaps Heisenberg.
Oh, and try searching for contingency and Liberal - our old friend Lib was very into this kind of thing.
Again, the issue here is that the universe is not necessarily contingent on anything. How does contingency handle probability? Is the result of a dice roll contingent on anything? Neglect for a moment that you could theoretically calculate all the forces here - in the quantum world you cannot.
It strikes me that someone fervent enough in their atheism in the 19th century could have predicted some parts of quantum physics as a way of getting around the first cause argument. I don’t know why anyone would have gone out like a limb like that, but in a sense atheism requires uncaused events, and predicts them. Accurate predictions are the hallmarks of a good theory - so in this sense atheism has been shown to be a good theory.
Theism of all stripes, on the other hand, has not had a good record of predicting anything - except the predictions that were made and verified before being written down (the witches in Macbeth were successful too!).
Actually, as I said in that other thread I linked to, I think this still doesn’t capture what modern cosmology tells us. Time is the difference in the configurations of the universe. The configuration in which the universe is as small as it can be could be said to be the state of the universe for the infinite time before the expansion, or one could say that there is no such thing as “before” the expansion: the two descritions are actually equivalent. Focussing on the first, the universe didn’t have a beginning - the expansion is just the shape of the universe. Again, introducing the word “cause” is rather to anthropomorphise the Planck era.
And I’d say this was, again, an ape who finds he was born with an advanced computer in his head putting the cart before the horse. Just because I can permute and combine my memories like a Photoshop session to yield new entities in my head does not necessarily mean that they are in any way relevant to the outside world, especially when we’re talking about the shape of the universe. My position is that truth is the output of a meat machine, and as such did not exist for 13.7 billion years, and that there is no such thing as “the metaphysical”.
Ah, but can you really? Or are you just placing an imaginary NOT in front of something to which that NOT doesn’t really apply? Yes, the book could be somewhere else, ie. NOT there. Yes, the combination of man and horse in your head (“centaur”) could be NOT anywhere. But can spacetime really have such an operator placed in front of it and still have any genuine relevance? Perhaps … er … not.
Of course, and I’m not out to impugn your beliefs, whatever they are. I seek only an admission on the part of theists that my position is at least tenable, even if you don’t personally follow my sidesteps yourself.
Trust… I admire your pacience… I had a similar live conversation quite similar to this thread… and naturally it didn’t go to far nor did the conversation stay civilized.
I think atheists like myself can’t let go of certain things that would make them beleive. We require some kind of internal logic and proof beyond doubt and personal experience. We can’t wrap our minds around faith.
I think you can’t wrap your mind around the idea of a true atheist. I agree that arguments against and for God are mostly faith since there aren’t much solid facts. How you use this as a basis for beleiving in God I don’t know. The need to have faith to beleive in God seems contradictory to me. If God were so obvious like you seem to imply… it certainly isn’t to us.
Anyway… your weakest argument so far has been about divine benevolence and the sacrifice of christ as proof. You certainly must work on that logic.
Soo, you’re certain other religions worship false idols (it’s obvious after all), despite your admitted ignorance of said other religions, but you don’t make judgment calls on other people’s religions?
BTW,
Can you explain what you mean by “the modern day religions”? When I hear the phrase modern day religion, I think of Scientology (ALL HAIL XENU™) not Christianity.
Why is it obvious that non-modern day religions worship false idols?
Which other “modern day religions” are similar to Christianity?
No I don’t remember that but I trust ya.
I like the part where I’m omnipotent. 
it’s cosmos with a second S, not cosmo…funny how often that mistake is made.
As I said to **Voyager **I understand the emotional level of the arguement. I feel it myself. From a strictly logical standpoint I don’t agree. What would we call a parent who went to extraordinary measures to insure their child never needed anything, never suffered in any way, benevolent and loving? Hardly. What kind of person would a child who was protected in that way grow up to be? A mature responsible adult? Probably not.
So your real question seems to be, as you said, why suffereing at all? Again, how do we choose without at least the perception of duality and something to choose from? You might say if God is omnipotent he can create a world where we have choices but will never suffer from any of them, or even percieve suffering as in a dream. Hmmmmm then where is choice? I might even say that such a place was created. It’s Heaven or perhaps Eden. When we by our choice decide to leave that place, would it be benevolent for God to deny us that choice, or is it benevolent to provide a path for us to return and a system that compels us to find that path?
At this point the question seems to change to, why creation at all? Why are we here and why is this perception of duality here for us? Fair questions but beyond our ability to answer at this time. Perhaps we are celestial beings on virtual ride at the amusement park. Seems real doesn’t it? 
In the movie Oh God, John Denver asks God why he allows all the suffering in the world and God responds “Why do you allow it?” What percentage of suffering would you say is a result of our choice? 90%? more? Natural disasters and illness are another matter but as I said, comparing them to eternity they are a scraped knee. As a parent myself I’ve had to face the reality of letting my children walk their own path even when I see them make bad choices that will only hurt them. I am here for them if they need me but at some point I have to let them bare the consequences of their own choices if I want them to grow up to be adults. They are my peers and yet still my children. Have you known parents who interfere in the lives of their adult children and try to coerse their children into living according to their standards? Does that seem loving to you? IMHO the parents who love their children and yet respect them as adults and treat them accordingly are the loving ones. That means allowing them to make their own decisions and develop as unique individuals. If I could insure that all their unpleasent experiences would pass away and in the end they would be joyous adults would I be benevolent in doing so?
Which part? People say it is impossible to comprehend God. I prefer to say, we will not soon. Jesus promised a spirit that would lead us into all truth and Paul said now we know in part but then shall we know as we are known {completely}
Becomeing one with the Father seems like comprehending to me. That process is made up in part of intellect. Logic and reason must be compatible with the truth but how do we inside these mortal bodies where the cycles of life count time all around us, comprehend the timeless. I believe we are connected to God and each other and what stands in our way is false perceptions of that not being true. We must surrender those false perceptions and leave them behind. We must also surrender to that inner connection that leads us on. That isn’t easy for anyone for surrender means changes and sometimes a direction we find uncomfortable.
I understood it to mean the same thing; that the universe has existed for all time because time was created with the universe. But then I read:
So now I’m unsure. However, I agree that, with the Big Bang, our usual ideas of cause occurring in time before something else are no longer valid. My original point (poorly expressed, perhaps) is if we can say the universe had a beginning–and by my understanding of cosmology it does–that is enough of a definition for “causality” to say the universe itself has a cause.
I am not fluent enough in the language of modern quantum theory to say whether this is true or not. From my basic understanding, however, the thing that differentiates QT from previous physical theories is that it deliberately eschews a metaphysical understanding of physics and concentrates on what, exactly, can we observe. Hence by definition the theory makes no predictions about where quantum-observables come from; it’s no surprise then the causes look random. This has made it a powerful tool for understanding a universe where the appearance of things contradicts our experience, but it does not refute metphysics so much as ignore it; the success of a theory that ignores metaphysical questions–questions that, rightly or wrongly, are often associated with religion–is proof enough for many that metaphysics (and hence God) are unnecessary. It isn’t for me, but I can certainly understand this position.
I believe, again, this is because QT deliberately excludes this possibility; its very success depends on this fact. Following this argument to a (for me) logical conclusion would mean there is no such thing as cause and effect, since all physical processes are, ultimately, quantum based. Not sure if I buy that, but again I understand the appeal.
This is, indeed, the definition of a good scientific theory, but I don’t think one needs to be an atheist to accept quantum theory. To summarize a point I think I’ve belabored, QT has deliberately excluded questions of metaphysics in order to draw conclusions about what is observed. It has not refuted these metaphysical notions, and to my mind there are some problems with saying it has.
I gather from this–perhaps wrongly–that to speak about “cause” in any way would be to put a human face on processes where it does not apply. If so, I will concede that some causes can be non-sentient: A rock falls because of gravity, not because of some divine power.
As I noted in a previous post, the Planck era is successful because it deliberately does not bring metaphysics into the question of physical observations. Metaphysics had been a part of physics in the past: The “force” of Newton’s laws of motion is a metaphysical concept, it is wholly defined by Newton’s laws, and its existence is only understood indirectly (in the acceleration of physical bodies).
The question of “truth” is a far, far greater topic than I think can be glibly summarized in a forum post. That may look like I’m ducking the question (and perhaps I am), so I will say that such a position means that logic does not exist outside the mind, and so we’re arguing whether or not a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if there’s no way to detect it.
As for whether or not there is a metaphysical (and in this sense I think you mean metaphysical concepts that exist outside the mind), I’ll again point back to the “force” present in Netwon’s laws of motion. Does “force” cease to exist if there is no one there to observe it. I doubt we’ll ever agree on a satisfactory answer to that question, but this is one of the few cases where the journey is more important than the destiantion.
Of course your position is tenable, even if I (a Theist, though take that to mean only that I believe in God’s existence) personally don’t agree. I would also say that in questions such as this–questions which I believe are philosophical and as such may not yield to direct scientific analysis–the truth of our convictions must be constantly challenged and argued; we should never be satisfied with any conclusions. That may leave some disheartened–or worse dismissive of this whole enterprise–but every now and then it is required to (if you’ll bear with a small spiritual metaphor) feed the soul.
Since you’re apparently accepting that the first premise (everything has a cause) might not be absolutely true, at least in principle, I’ll address your other, non-cosmological points unless there’s something else about cosmology you’d like to discuss specifically. (I’m no expert, by the way!)
Hmm, “logic doesn’t exist outside the mind”? I’ll temporarily go along with that for the sake of this argument, noting that logic gates are how electronic devices work, so we’d have to include electronic circuitry in “the mind”. (Heck, you can make logical circuitry out of gears - logic is perhaps even defined as “what a Turing machine does”.)
Anyone who argued that it didn’t would have to propose a mechanism whereby the atoms in motion fail to transfer their vibrations to the surrounding air thereby propagating an acoustic wave through the medium, as it does when a microphone is present. How does removing the microphone affect that propagatory mechanism?
Stuff does stuff. Stuff did stuff for 13.7 Bn years, and stuff continued to do stuff when language evolved in apes. “Force” is a word which describes some specific stuff doing stuff. Again, the horse must be placed after the cart.
I’m sorry, cosmosdan. I know sometimes people mess up names as a joke, but I didn’t mean it that way - just a brain fart.
Here ya go
I think everyone should read the Bible - not the children’s Bible, with the interesting stuff left out, but the real Bible. It’s full of stuff like this. The religious keep themselves busy finding explanations for all of it.
As for your quote, I guess no one has faith, since I haven’t seen any mountains moving lately. 
Like, as long as my bias is so inordinately complex it can’t be shaken by mere mortals.
It’s not like we were talking about a Universal PRESENCE or anything after all.
In The Fabric of the Cosmos Greene says that some modern inflationary theories allow time to pass between the “creation” of the initial energy and inflation. I don’t think anyone thinks this time is infinite. I’m not sure time can even said to exist at this point. So, I’m confused right along with you.
The reason for the quantum foam, in my feeble understanding, is that it is impossible to know for sure that space is empty. So, to a certain extent it is necessarily random - or at least looks so to us. You are correct that this does not rule out a first cause, but it at least gives a plausible mechanism for there not to be a first cause. If we had additional convincing evidence of any god’s existence this would not be an issue, but absent that it seems to indicate that god is not all that necessary.
Heisenberg applies to everything, but the level of uncertainly decreases with increasing size in some sense. (Again, this is just my poor understanding.) So while you are right, the probability my monitor will move ten feet to the right is so small it won’t be likely to happen for several lifes of the universe. I don’t know if this is statistical, or based on the size/mass of the object.
You have it backwards. I’m not saying quantum theory predicts atheism, but that atheism should have predicted quantum theory! I certainly don’t agree with the former - if a god did create the universe, QT might well be the best way of implementing it.
A parent who never let a child be hungry, even for a moment, is doing the child no favors. But a parent who starved a child for a week to show what hunger is is a monster. If a child crawls to a light socket, you pull him away, and not worry too much about whether he cries or whether you bruise his arm. You don’t beat the crap out of him.
There are plenty of ways for god to give us the benefit of suffering without the excesses of our world.
Hmm… So, are you retreating from the position that the existence of any suffering at all is an argument against God’s benevolence?
If so, by what standards do you judge the suffering we actually experience as “excessive”? Our own? If so, isn’t that like asking a six-year-old if his parents’ refusal to give him as much chocolate he wants is "excessive? Without an objective standard of “acceptable” suffering, I don’t see how this argument can be developed if you concede that some suffering can be beneficial.
I’m not sure I did that, and it was certainly not my intention; I apologize if I was unclear. When I said was that that some causes can be non-sentient, I did not mean that non-sentience disqualifies something from being a cause of something else.
To be clear, I assert everything has a cause; my remarks about contingency and the temporal restrictions on causality were merely to illustrate ways one could recognize a cause for a particular effect.
I’m glad you included “perhaps”, because defining logic as “what a Turing machine does” is circular. Logic is the study of the structure of propositions (as distinguished from their content) and of method and validity in deductive reasoning. I questioned whether such a thing exists prior to the appearance of humanity if “truth is the output of a meat machine, and as such did not exist for 13.7 billion years.” Most folk (I’m guessing here) would say logic is independent of humanity, which I think could undermine your definition of truth.
The question is an old connundrum that exposes the defects in many concepts of knowledge. For example, by limiting the transmission of cause -> effect to only physical mechanisms (falling tree -> sound -> perception by a listener), one could also apply the same limitation to the cause and effect behind knowing that a falling tree with no observer still makes a sound. Since there is no observer present to be affected by a physical mechanism, one could also argue that we cannot know the tree made a sound because there is no physical cause to produce this knowledge.
To glibly sum it up, why should the arguer have to propose a physical mechanism for something failing to happen (sounds a lot like requiring someone to prove God doesn’t exist) when the physical mechanism is incapable of explaining how we know that something happened? In reading that last sentence, I realize it may come off as smart-alecky; that is not my intent, but I think it sums up the question neatly, so I’ll leave it with an apology in advance.
I agree (though I think you meant to say the horse must be placed before the cart). It’s foolish to think “force” isn’t real in some way, and that this reality doesn’t represent some kind of truth independent of whether or not a human being is there to evaluate it.
Yes, I did have it backwards, and this is an interesting thought. It’s obvious that quantum theory was too weird (i.e. contrary to common experience) to have been predicted in detail by 19th century atheists wthat knew something of the scientific method. I wonder if any scientists proposed a non-deterministic physical theory prior to 1900, i.e. tried to do for physics what Darwin did for biology? Anyone?