I don’t think it’s the point, per se. It’s the reality of the situation. The point is that if you create a good and all-powerful god, perfection and total absence of suffering is expected. Without that, we have duality because that’s all we can expect. Anything else presumes to know what an all-powerful god is thinking.
I don’t agree. I don’t presume anything like that. If you recall my point way back in the thread was recognizing what we don’t know. We can {and must} come to certain conclusions based on what we know and believe to be true so far, but we can also recognize that there is likely a vast amount left to learn.
No
That’s why I said “…on down”. This would include your common cases too. But I think you missed my point - TGG is inherently subjective, which makes it no metric for compelling behaviour, IMO.
I don’t voluntarily pay taxes, though, so I’m morally free on that score.
No, that’s not true - any discussion where you try and tell me what’s moral, as though there was some ultimate standard, makes my morality part of the discussion.
You’re doing more than that - you’re also using that norm to argue what the moral way should be, with the implicit assumption that what’s normative is what’s right. How would that have worked for you in, say, 1300s Mexico?
au contraire - if I didn’t believe my morality was absolutely correct, and the best for everyone, it wouldn’t be my morlity anymore.
No, that was my point - that’s playing a semantic game with the meaning of good and evil which renders any discussion of them pretty meaningless. Which doesn’t leave room for any discussion of omnibenevolence. If to you, good is only good relative to greater evil, then I can see why the argument from evil is difficult for you to grasp.
That’s not pacifism, that’s just an even temper.
That’s up to them. I’m not a country or a world leader, and I only apply my morality to my own actions. I make moral judgements about others actions too, but I don’t try and force my moral viewpoint on others outside discussions like this.
I don’t need assurance, though - it’s superior because it’s mine.
But you can’t argue about a good god, or omnibenevolence, without those kinds of absolutes. If all morality is relative, how can anyone be justified in calling god “good” at all?
The fact that we don’t know all there is to know doesn’t change the fact that many people seem to think they know what god wants or why a perfect being would allow suffering. To me, it’s very simple. If he’s perfect, not only would we not wonder what he’s thinking, but we’d also not suffer.
Who do you suppose selected that as being the point? Presuming a tri-omni god, it whould have to have been him, I’d think, because if he was opposed to it he’d just change it.
Now, given that duality is not itself necessary or beneficial (given a tri-omni), it seems to me that tucking the suffering away behind the label ‘duality’ does little to solve the problem of evil; regardless of what you call it you have a god who has decided that unnecessary suffering is a good thing in his opinion. To me this seems inherently contradictory with the idea that the god is omnibenevolent. Putting aside all semantic slight of hand, I don’t see how somebody can argue that suffering/duality is “the point” without compromising one or more of the omni-attributes.
The problem with divine morality is that morality is whatever God says it is, even if it looks evil to us. Maybe benevolence is considered the same by proponents of a tri-omni God. Suffering is part of benevolence by definition, and if you don’t like it you don’t understand that God sets down the definition of benevolence. I think you’re right,. and thus the two cases (morality and benevolence) are roughly equivalent in how they get treated by believers.
You appear to be demonstrably right, based on how ‘duality’ is being given props in this very thread when it basically just means “sometimes things suck more than other times” - however while it’s perfectly legitimate to claim that God might have some unknown enigmatic system of morality that isn’t ours and makes no sense to us, the “benevolence” in “omnibenevolence” is a purely human claim in and of itself, based on purely human words and ideas, and trying to redefine it is moving the goalposts at best and sheer semantic slight of hand at worst. God having his own self-centered goals and morals that allow for earthy suffering is one thing, but claiming that that makes them good for us (which attributing him benevolence claims) is something else entirely.
That’s brings us right back to “why creation at all”.
That’s as unanswerable as questions about how the universe began if we keep asking “what happened before that? what existed before that?”
Of course you do. It’s not as if you have zero alternatives.
I don’t agree. Observing what the norm currently is does not automatically include a value judgment about it.
When you make this statement and then these;
it’s confusing. It’s also still a tangent that I don’t wish to pursue at this time. It would be interesting for another thread.
This discussion sprang from a specific statement about moral* humans*.
Well, fellow Dopers, I can see this isn’t going anywhere else. We are just repeating the same arguments.
One more thought. More often than not in these discussions we refer to God and then us {humans} as if God were a completely separate being acting upon us as lesser beings. I understand that because unfortunately that’s been how it’s been portrayed in many beliefs. I don’t see it that way. I think creation and we as humans are all connected in a way that is much more substantial than science can explain or understand at this moment. It seems to me that even the apparent ability to choose makes us a part of the ongoing creative process.
Whether God is or is not or whether or not there is some ultimate purpose for all creation, we do observe great suffering and it is within our ability to do what we can to ease that suffering.
Regards until the next time.
Why, indeed? I don’t believe it’s unanswerable. I think we don’t have the answer yet. Maybe the universe was always here. Maybe our presence within the universe at this point on the infinite timeline is a fluke.
The idea of a purposeless existence (outside the purpose we individually assign to ourselves or individuals who affect our lives) is sometimes frightening to people who have grown up believing that there is some sort of father figure who has a plan for us. The idea isn’t frightening to me. I was never told there was an answer to the big questions of how or why we’re here. It isn’t as glamorous as the idea that there is a powerful being who cares what we do. But that doesn’t mean we make things up to fill the void. “We don’t know, but we’re trying to find out” is a valid response to the question.
Yes it is, and that’s what I’m trying to do. I recommend it to everyone regardless of their current belief system.
You too.