The Future of Religion

[Voyager]

<copied from a response I wrote last night, only to find the board down yet again.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If that’s the case then no amount of suffering no matter how minor is acceptable. Is that the argument? A benevolent God would not allow any suffering at all?

[/quote]

No. Suffering for a greater good is okay - like when you go to a dentist. And an omnibenevolent god minimizes suffering, not eliminates it. But the duration of unwarranted suffering in relation to your life or to eternity does not excuse it.

I wasn’t referring to religion specific doctrine. The question to me seems to be, would a benevolent God actually allow suffering?

I see you misunderstand the nature of the problem of natural evil. It is not suffering that is the problem, it is more than the minimal amount of suffering to make the world work. Consider the thing that turned Darwin off. Predators are necessary, for without them prey would expand so fast as to outrun their food supply. Prey will suffer when killed by a predator, but this suffering is inevitable. (Well, you could probably create some mechanism to prevent it, but that might make the predator starve.) But some predators lay eggs in their live victims. Ugh.

So, a benevolent god allows suffering, but only the minimal amount required. We see far more than the minimal amount.

And your final point is where people always go - this is the best of all possible worlds argument, and we can’t understand the reasons that god just had to let those kids drown. Doesn’t work for me, any more than it does when I’m supposed to believe that the government is torturing people for my own good and for reasons I’m not authorized to know.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Patty O’Furniture]
Organized religion will be with us for as long as it continues to stay profitable.
[/QUOTE]

I think organized religion will end the day after prostitution does. In other words, when all people can achieve their desires and goals by their own actions, with no shortcuts for money and/or prayer and/or money for prayer.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Can you think of examples of parents who are overly protective or intervene to “protect” their children from the harsh realities of life? What kind of people do those children become? Yes God has options we don’t but also knowledge that we don’t.
[/quote]
Yes, I can think of those examples, but the point is that God doesn’t have to rely on either hiding us from suffering or exposing it to us, both flawed approaches; he can mix the good parts from both. That’s the point of omnipotency - whatever it is that such coddled children lack, an omnipotent God can give, and without exposure to suffering.

and omniscient right? I repeat, if the brief human experience and the scope of that experience is part of the purpose then it is not illogical.
For the moment , we do not have the proper information to judge correctly. We can honestly say it seems illogical from our limited human perspective but logic also demands that we acknowledge that we lack the larger perspective that God would have. Lacking that we are incapable of claiming within the rules of logic that God cannot exist, just as we lack the ability to make that claim from a scientific standpoint.

The loophole that we do not have the proper information to judge correctly is certainly a reasonable one, but to take it up on this point means to take it up on all points. If we cannot understand God, then we cannot understand him across the board, and nothing can be accepted, including from a spiritual standpoint.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
<copied from a response I wrote last night, only to find the board down yet again.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Had the same experience.

No. Suffering for a greater good is okay - like when you go to a dentist. And an omnibenevolent god minimizes suffering, not eliminates it. But the duration of unwarranted suffering in relation to your life or to eternity does not excuse it.

Okay, but how do we, from our mortal perspective, assume to declare what is unwarranted? I fully acknowledge that from our perspective the degree of suffering is horrendous. Natural suffering , as bad as it is, doesn’t make me cringe as much as mankind’s potential for enormous cruelty to his fellow man. Regardless, it simply doesn’t seem logical to me think we can start with the supposition “God is” and then say something beyond us is illogical.

I see you misunderstand the nature of the problem of natural evil. It is not suffering that is the problem, it is more than the minimal amount of suffering to make the world work. Consider the thing that turned Darwin off. Predators are necessary, for without them prey would expand so fast as to outrun their food supply. Prey will suffer when killed by a predator, but this suffering is inevitable. (Well, you could probably create some mechanism to prevent it, but that might make the predator starve.) But some predators lay eggs in their live victims. Ugh.

So, a benevolent god allows suffering, but only the minimal amount required. We see far more than the minimal amount.

I repeat, how do we, from our limited human perspective , think we can declare what the minimal amount is? From a personal opinion POV it’s reasonable to claim that is the case, but not from some claim on logic.

And your final point is where people always go - this is the best of all possible worlds argument, and we can’t understand the reasons that god just had to let those kids drown. Doesn’t work for me, any more than it does when I’m supposed to believe that the government is torturing people for my own good and for reasons I’m not authorized to know.

I get it honest. I’m only trying to differentiate between personal opinion and preference and what is often presented as an exercise in logic. The fact is that although I disagree with my government torturing people for my own good I also accept that maybe I’m wrong about them. I also know my government is fallible and is making the kind of imperfect judgment call humans make. If we assume God is and has certain qualities then surely an argument that may be emotionally unsatisfying can’t really be based on logic.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m not sure what the difference is between benevolent {disposed to doing good}
and omnibenevolent. Creating your own definitions doesn’t make it more logical.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not *my *definition, it’s a fairly standard one for this debate. “Omnibenevolent” is another way of saying god is nothing but Good, is maximally Good, or is Goodness personified. It’s a fairly common part of the definition of the usual Western concept of god, based on biblical texts, I believe.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

Since my life experience as a parent tells me my love for my children never stops even though I have to let them experience some unpleasant things I can extrapolate that to the God as father metaphor.
[/QUOTE]
This is where the metaphor breaks down. An omnipotent god doesn’t have to let us experience suffering. That kicks the whole “god as parent” analogy in the crotch.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Would I save them from all pain and suffering if I could. Not if I wanted them to grow into responsible useful adults.
[/QUOTE]
Why? What’s the connection between suffering and useful adulthood, that can’t be overcome by an omnipotent god? Knowing not to touch fire? An omnipotent god can implant that knowledge in you, hell, make it instinctual in everyone. Same for any other example I can think of.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
They sometimes saw me as mean or cruel or unfair because from their perspective I was not being loving. Now as adults with children of their own they understand a lot more.
[/QUOTE]
This is not how I parent, nor how I was parented. You’re extrapolating from anecdotal to the universal. Actually, the Universal. Not logical.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

IMHO the purpose of creation is critical to any logical discussion. If the overall purpose of creation is positive then God remains benevolent no matter how hard it is for our human perspective to understand.
[/QUOTE]
He can remain benevolent, yes, but not omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence is not a final outcomes thing, it should be a constant state.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

So you reject the idea that adversity can be a tool for personal growth?
[/QUOTE]
No, I reject that it is necessary for said growth. That growth can’t be achieved witout it.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

God’s omnipotence also doesn’t change the overall purpose. As I just said, even if I could prevent any suffering from my own kids it wouldn’t necessarily be an act of love to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t it? Why not? Assuming omnipotence, of course.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

I have addressed it above. If we are spiritual beings and only temporarily physical then physical death holds no negative aspect. We must also factor in that each moment and the events within it affect more than one individual. The vast web of creation, cause and effect is too much for us to comprehend for now.

[/QUOTE]
That’s just the argument from ignorance. It holds no water for me when you still haven’t proved the existence of god i.e. it’s a form of begging the question.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

I simply don’t agree and don’t find this to be logical. If the overall purpose of creation is positive then there is no conflict with benevolence and omnipotence as qualities of God.
[/QUOTE]
OMNIbenevolence. And yes, there is a conflict.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

The parent analogy isn’t perfect but useful. There were times in my children’s lives when I did have the power to intervene and spare them some discomfort but I didn’t because my purpose was to have them grow up to be responsible adults. They are now my peers even though they are remain my children. In those times there was no contradiction between my ability to intervene and my love. My purpose and my love for them , my experience about life in general, that they couldn’t understand at that point, told me to let them have the experience.

[/QUOTE]
…and the entire Universe runs according to your particular parenting stategy, why?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

Extrapolate that to God with complete knowledge of all creation and exactly how all the billions of physical events fit into a reflection of spiritual reality and how those events turn the wheel of growth. A person may say “it doesn’t make any sense to me.” but we cannot use logic to draw conclusions about things we can’t comprehend. It isn’t logical to do so.
[/QUOTE]
I can comprehend omnibenevolence, omnipotence and natural evil just fine. Just the combination of those three leads to a logical contradiction regardless of any other factors. Limits in your understanding are not my problem, and amounts to an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

So fine, if you think that the existence of your god is not amenable to logical debate, that god is fundamentally illogical,you should have said so right at the start. Not that I agree, anymore, I was convinced logic applies everywhere in another thread. But it would have saved a lot of pixels. Poor, innocent pixels…

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Okay, but how do we, from our mortal perspective, assume to declare what is unwarranted?
[/QUOTE]
By applying god’s own rules to himself, of course. Or are you saying god may have one definition of Good for himself and a different one for us? There’s a word for that.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Regardless, it simply doesn’t seem logical to me think we can start with the supposition “God is” and then say something beyond us is illogical.
[/QUOTE]
Of course not. You can’t start with a supposition that’s* not based on any logic *and then use logic on it, I agree. So you’re saying there’s no basis for you belief, you consider god axiomatic? Doesn’t leave any room for debate, does it?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

I repeat, how do we, from our limited human perspective , think we can declare what the minimal amount is?
[/QUOTE]
By allowing god the* full benefit* of those attributes we ascribe to him. If you choose to hobble your god’s benevolence or potence in service to your limited conception of him, don’t be surprised if it leads you to a point where you then have to defend him using logical fallacies like incredulity or ignorance.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
From a personal opinion POV it’s reasonable to claim that is the case, but not from some claim on logic.
[/QUOTE]
Why not? Logic isn’t some magical area that has bounds. Logic exists in our minds, and applies to whatever we choose to apply it to.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I also know my government is fallible and is making the kind of imperfect judgment call humans make.
[/QUOTE]
Do you believe your god is also fallible?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If we assume God is and has certain qualities then surely an argument that may be emotionally unsatisfying can’t really be based on logic.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t really see what you’re saying here. Could you rephrase?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Yes, I can think of those examples, but the point is that God doesn’t have to rely on either hiding us from suffering or exposing it to us, both flawed approaches; he can mix the good parts from both. That’s the point of omnipotency - whatever it is that such coddled children lack, an omnipotent God can give, and without exposure to suffering.
[/QUOTE]

True. That’s what leads me to think that if God is, the experience itself is part of the point. In order for us to have free will or the illusion of free will there has to be something to choose. There has to be a world where duality exists and there appears to be things that are desirable and things that are not.

The loophole that we do not have the proper information to judge correctly is certainly a reasonable one, but to take it up on this point means to take it up on all points. If we cannot understand God, then we cannot understand him across the board, and nothing can be accepted, including from a spiritual standpoint.

I’m not sure I understand your point.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
It’s not *my *definition, it’s a fairly standard one for this debate. “Omnibenevolent” is another way of saying god is nothing but Good, is maximally Good, or is Goodness personified. It’s a fairly common part of the definition of the usual Western concept of god, based on biblical texts, I believe.
[/QUOTE]

As you can see from the above posts not everyone sees it that way. I’d say it was God is consistently good. That his purpose is consistently good. How that purpose unfolds may not seem to be good from our perspective.

This is where the metaphor breaks down. An omnipotent god doesn’t have to let us experience suffering. That kicks the whole “god as parent” analogy in the crotch.

Yes but what you’ve addressed here is purpose. God doesn’t have to but apparently does. The question of why speaks to purpose and is crucial to any argument about logic.
I am willing to let my child have bad experiences because of my love and purpose. As a human I can’t be sure of the results or if my decisions are the correct ones. I have no certain knowledge of how my child will respond to the experience. God does have certain knowledge and knows exactly how cause and effect fit together and why.
I repeat, if we don’t consider purpose or, if the experiences themselves are the purpose, then we can’t truly find and make any logical contradiction.

Why? What’s the connection between suffering and useful adulthood, that can’t be overcome by an omnipotent god? Knowing not to touch fire? An omnipotent god can implant that knowledge in you, hell, make it instinctual in everyone. Same for any other example I can think of.

It’s not a question of ability but purpose.

This is not how I parent, nor how I was parented. You’re extrapolating from anecdotal to the universal. Actually, the Universal. Not logical.

In exactly what way is it not logical?

He can remain benevolent, yes, but not omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence is not a final outcomes thing, it should be a constant state.

If final outcome is good then benevolence is constant throughout and fits the definition.

No, I reject that it is necessary for said growth. That growth can’t be achieved witout it.

Within the human experience?

Wouldn’t it? Why not? Assuming omnipotence, of course.

Because I think their lives are made richer and fuller by experiences. To spare them any discomfort by depriving them of life experiences is not loving.

That’s just the argument from ignorance. It holds no water for me when you still haven’t proved the existence of god i.e. it’s a form of begging the question.

Of course I haven’t. That was never my intention. This whole topic is an argument from ignorance for everyone involved. It was you who made the claim of proving something through logic. That’s why I’m disputing.

OMNIbenevolence. And yes, there is a conflict…

by your definition which isn’t shared by everyone.

and the entire Universe runs according to your particular parenting stategy, why?

I haven’t claimed it does or that I know why. I’m not claiming any beliefs as facts. I’m disputing the logic of your statement. I’m saying that given the things we don’t know, the logic isn’t sound.

I can comprehend omnibenevolence, omnipotence and natural evil just fine.

If you say so. There is a difference between understanding the definition and comprehension.

Just the combination of those three leads to a logical contradiction regardless of any other factors. Limits in your understanding are not my problem, and amounts to an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

No contradiction that I see. I think the logic is faulty and I’ve explained why.

So fine, if you think that the existence of your god is not amenable to logical debate, that god is fundamentally illogical,you should have said so right at the start. Not that I agree, anymore, I was convinced logic applies everywhere in another thread. But it would have saved a lot of pixels. Poor, innocent pixels…

I stated my case from the start. What was being presented as an argument of logic is faulty logic. Logic requires that we acknowledge what we don’t know and what factors are necessary to reach a logical conclusion. If you take the steps to make a claim of logical proof and leave out a critical factor it isn’t actually logical.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
As you can see from the above posts not everyone sees it that way. I’d say it was God is consistently good. That his purpose is consistently good. How that purpose unfolds may not seem to be good from our perspective.
[/quote]
So you are saying god has different standards for good from humanity?

Yes but what you’ve addressed here is purpose. God doesn’t have to but apparently does. The question of why speaks to purpose and is crucial to any argument about logic.

purpose doesn’t have to come into it at all - it’s inherent in the definitions of natural evil, benevolence, potence and the omni prefix. God having a purpose doesn’t change anything.

I am willing to let my child have bad experiences because of my love and purpose.

Would you if such suffering wasn’t necessary, though?

As a human I can’t be sure of the results or if my decisions are the correct ones. I have no certain knowledge of how my child will respond to the experience. God does have certain knowledge and knows exactly how cause and effect fit together and why.

That’s a circular argument you just made.

I repeat, if we don’t consider purpose or, if the experiences themselves are the purpose, then we can’t truly find and make any logical contradiction.

Like I said, purpose has got nothing to do with the contradiction.

In exactly what way is it not logical?

It commits the logical fallacy of hasty generalization

If final outcome is good then benevolence is constant throughout and fits the definition.

Not so. A good final outcome doesn’t erase the suffering that precedes it, does it now?

Within the human experience?

Yes. It is possible to be a full and complete person without ever having suffered pain, hunger, disease, deprivation. IMO.

Because I think their lives are made richer and fuller by experiences. To spare them any discomfort by depriving them of life experiences is not loving.

But you are not in a position to impart the positive benefits of those same life experiences to them without them suffering at all, as an omnipotent god would be.

It seems to me you’re arguing that god doesn’t like messing with people’s heads. So much for omnipotence.

Of course I haven’t. That was never my intention. This whole topic is an argument from ignorance for everyone involved.

I’m not arguing from ignorance. I’m admitting what the premises of my argument are, and withing its logical bounds, it is pretty complete.

It was you who made the claim of proving something through logic. That’s why I’m disputing.

The only way to attack it is to either show that the logical chain from god’s attributes to inconsistency is faulty, or the premises are flawed. Arguing from what we don’t know isn’t a sound argument, nor is it pertinent, as the argument I’m using is self-complete.

If you say so. There is a difference between understanding the definition and comprehension.

So far it’s looking like you’re the one who doesn’t fully comprehend the full import of an omnimax god.

No contradiction that I see. I think the logic is faulty and I’ve explained why.

But your counterargument rests on either an argument from incredulity or a limited view of god’s abilities. The first is a logical fallacy, the second, hey, I’m willing to concede. Anyone who says their god is good, but not ALL God, or their god is powerful, but not ALL Powerful, doesn’t have the same argument to make..

I stated my case from the start. What was being presented as an argument of logic is faulty logic.

You have yet to point out a flaw in the actual logic employed.

Logic requires that we acknowledge what we don’t know and what factors are necessary to reach a logical conclusion.

I have done so. I am merely not agreeing that the factor you seem to think is important (god’s “purpose”, which even you acknowledge we can’t know) just plain doesn’t factor into it.
You have yet to attack the logic of the two statement:
If you are saying god’s purpose means he has to let us suffer, even a little, then he can’t be all-powerful, since an omnipotent god could achieve the same results without suffering (it’s built into the very definition of omnipotence). Or else he doesn’t want to lessen our suffering even though he can, and still achieve the same result.Which puts paid to his omnibenevolence.

There, attack the logic of that.

If you take the steps to make a claim of logical proof and leave out a critical factor it isn’t actually logical.

Good thing I didn’t do that.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
By applying god’s own rules to himself, of course. Or are you saying god may have one definition of Good for himself and a different one for us? There’s a word for that.
[/QUOTE]

They are not God’s rules. They are the supposed qualities of God. Good is subjective isn’t it? Are you saying we all share the same definition?

You may have heard about the hiker who was trapped alone while hiking, his arm pinned by a large rock. After a day or so he realized he might starve if he didn’t get out so while he still had the strength he cut off his own arm and made it to safety. True story. He sacrificed his arm for the greater good and inflicted some serious suffering on himself for higher purpose. If we can grasp that why can’t we grasp the possibility that creation, with all it’s positives and negatives may have {not does have} a higher purpose that we have yet to comprehend?

Of course not. You can’t start with a supposition that’s* not based on any logic *and then use logic on it, I agree. So you’re saying there’s no basis for you belief, you consider god axiomatic? Doesn’t leave any room for debate, does it?

feel free to stop anytime. I’m saying if we enter into a discussion premised on God is then it’s near impossible to make claims about logical proofs. {which seems to be what you’ve done} If someone says their is no scientific evidence that God exists I’d agree. If they said science proves God does not exist they’d be wrong.

By allowing god the* full benefit* of those attributes we ascribe to him. If you choose to hobble your god’s benevolence or potence in service to your limited conception of him, don’t be surprised if it leads you to a point where you then have to defend him using logical fallacies like incredulity or ignorance.

I don’t believe I’ve done either of those, or limited God in any way. It is his limitless qualities that make your logic fail. If we acknowledge that minimal suffering is acceptable {I know you haven’t} for growth then how do we draw a line to say what is acceptable and what isn’t when considering all creation and how it fits together. If we do that it’s on a personal subjective level, not on logical proofs.

Why not? Logic isn’t some magical area that has bounds. Logic exists in our minds, and applies to whatever we choose to apply it to.

Logic doesn’t have bounds? Does everyone know? It certainly has widely accepted principles.

Do you believe your god is also fallible?

No, with the possible exception of the avocado pits. Too big.

I don’t really see what you’re saying here. Could you rephrase?

Yeah that phrasing sucked. Sorry.

We assume certain omni qualities about God that we understand by definition but are beyond us to truly comprehend. Omniscience, God sees all of existence and comprehends exactly how it all fits and works together , how every cause and effect however large or small works. God knows all the unknowns we are still trying to figure out. I can write it but I can’t truly comprehend it.

So how do we from our limited human perspective and our limited knowledge think we can make any claim of logical proof about what amount of suffering is too much . We can’t. We can make a perfectly acceptable subjective judgment call and I respect that as valid.
I repeatedly see claims about logic and God belief on the SDMB that I don’t consider logical at all. For accuracies sake I’m trying to separate and clarify the two.

[Kalhoun]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

We assume certain omni qualities about God that we understand by definition but are beyond us to truly comprehend. Omniscience, God sees all of existence and comprehends exactly how it all fits and works together , how every cause and effect however large or small works. God knows all the unknowns we are still trying to figure out. I can write it but I can’t truly comprehend it.

So how do we from our limited human perspective and our limited knowledge think we can make any claim of logical proof about what amount of suffering is too much . We can’t. We can make a perfectly acceptable subjective judgment call and I respect that as valid.
I repeatedly see claims about logic and God belief on the SDMB that I don’t consider logical at all. For accuracies sake I’m trying to separate and clarify the two.
[/QUOTE]

Not to totally barge in on your discussion so late in the game, but which god are you talking about? What you may assume about god is not what a lot of people assume about god. This general statement makes the discussion rather difficult, as there are people who definitely believe in god and who definitely do not agree with what you’re saying.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

Okay, but how do we, from our mortal perspective, assume to declare what is unwarranted? I fully acknowledge that from our perspective the degree of suffering is horrendous.

[/quote]

That’s the “Your arms are too short to box with God” argument.

Natural suffering , as bad as it is, doesn’t make me cringe as much as mankind’s potential for enormous cruelty to his fellow man.

True, but in this case there is at least the free will argument. We can challenge that, why wondering why free will could work in boundaries not allowing the worst of abuses, since our free will is already limited. That’s a more subtle argument, and the natural evil one has the advantage of not needing to consider free will.

Regardless, it simply doesn’t seem logical to me think we can start with the supposition “God is” and then say something beyond us is illogical.
I repeat, how do we, from our limited human perspective , think we can declare what the minimal amount is? From a personal opinion POV it’s reasonable to claim that is the case, but not from some claim on logic.

I get it honest. I’m only trying to differentiate between personal opinion and preference and what is often presented as an exercise in logic. The fact is that although I disagree with my government torturing people for my own good I also accept that maybe I’m wrong about them. I also know my government is fallible and is making the kind of imperfect judgment call humans make. If we assume God is and has certain qualities then surely an argument that may be emotionally unsatisfying can’t really be based on logic.

It’s absolutely based on logic and evidence. The premise is that god is omnibenevolent. We’re both assuming things about god. For evidence we have the world. We also have our ability to construct scenarios where god can reduce suffering without any apparent increase in evil. We could construct a number of different cases for god’s benevolence, and present evidence and arguments against them. That’s not emotional at all. On the other side, all I see is the assumption that god is benevolent and the rejection of all evidence against because it is evidence against.

Basically

Rule 1: God is omnibenevolent
Rule 2: If something awful happens which god could have mitigated, see rule 1.
Rule 3: Hi, Opal.

Clinging to god’s omnibenevolence in the face of evidence seems far more emotional to me. Your position is unfalsifiable, of course, but it isn’t very convincing or logical.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
They are not God’s rules. They are the supposed qualities of God. Good is subjective isn’t it?
[/quote]
Not if the traditional god exists, it isn’t. That’s a surprising statement for a theist to make, really.

Are you saying we all share the same definition?

I’m saying if god exists, then we* ought to*.

You may have heard about the hiker who was trapped alone while hiking, his arm pinned by a large rock. After a day or so he realized he might starve if he didn’t get out so while he still had the strength he cut off his own arm and made it to safety. True story. He sacrificed his arm for the greater good and inflicted some serious suffering on himself for higher purpose. If we can grasp that why can’t we grasp the possibility that creation, with all it’s positives and negatives may have {not does have} a higher purpose that we have yet to comprehend?

Pointless anecdote - the hiker didn’t have the ability to make the rock just disappear, or levitate off, or turn into a pile of 1000 dollar bills instead. Again, you’re limiting your supposedly omnipotent god with your human perspective.

feel free to stop anytime.

Boy, did you miss the point there.

I’m saying if we enter into a discussion premised on God is then it’s near impossible to make claims about logical proofs. {which seems to be what you’ve done}

Not true - unless you’re postulating that god himself can contain logical contradictions e.g. the classic “can create a rock he can’t lift”. Even Liberal has an issue with that kind of argument, and he’s got a better grasp of logic than either of us. You can’t use “god is mysterious” to get around logic. If god is mysterious, then you can’t also say he is omnibenevolent or omnipotent. If god is unknowable, then that’s all you can say about him.
From now on, when DT says god is evil, I expect you to be the *first *to reply “Could be, could be. Who can say. Not me, that’s for sure.”
[/quote]
If someone says their is no scientific evidence that God exists I’d agree. If they said science proves God does not exist they’d be wrong.
[/quote]
I said nothing about science proving anything. I’ve used a strictly philosophical argument to prove that god is logically inconsistent.

I don’t believe I’ve done either of those, or limited God in any way.

You’ve limited him to using the tool of suffering when it goes against his omnibenevolent nature and omnipotence.

It is his limitless qualities that make your logic fail.

Which qualities? I didn’t list ineffibility in there.

If we acknowledge that minimal suffering is acceptable {I know you haven’t} for growth then how do we draw a line to say what is acceptable and what isn’t when considering all creation and how it fits together. If we do that it’s on a personal subjective level, not on logical proofs.

So you say. I’m not buying it. The argument isn’t about what’s acceptable to you or me, it’s about what should be acceptable to a being that’s been defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

I should add the the incompatability argument applies not just to that particular set of attributes, BTW. If you read that link I posted, you’d have seen that there are a whole list of incompatibilities. Sue, you can just get around them by saying “god works in mysterious ways”, but realise that that is you* abdicating* the argument,* not* winning it.

Logic doesn’t have bounds? Does everyone know? It certainly has widely accepted principles.

That’s not the same as saying there are realms where logic doesn’t apply, which is what you attempted to do.

No,

Then why compare him to a fallible government? If your god doesn’t make mistakes, then ineffibility is no excuse for any suffering he allows.

Yeah that phrasing sucked. Sorry.

We assume certain omni qualities about God that we understand by definition but are beyond us to truly comprehend.

Like I said, I comprehend both omnibenevolence and omnipotence just fine. Certainly well enough to know when they are in conflict with each other. It’s nothing to do with limited understanding, and everything to do with not acting like a someone’s idea of a stern parent. Parents are limited, and therefore have to allow suffering, and therefore have to see the good side of it (that it “builds character”. An omnipotent god is not so limited, and** must** be able to see how to accomplish character building without suffering. If not, then he is a limited god.

So how do we from our limited human perspective and our limited knowledge think we can make any claim of logical proof about what amount of suffering is too much .

It’s not a question of how much is too much to accomplish whatever mysterious aims god has, it’s whether any suffering at all is compatible with god’s stated attributes.

We can’t. We can make a perfectly acceptable subjective judgment call and I respect that as valid.

We don’t have to be subjective at all. God’s actions are either compatible with his stated attributes or they are not. Why they aren’t isn’t important. I’m not here looking for your excuses for why god is not omnibenevolent or omnipotent. The fact that he isn’t one or the other (or both) is enough of a proof for me.

I repeatedly see claims about logic and God belief on the SDMB that I don’t consider logical at all.

To be frank, I’m not sure you have enough basis in logical argument to make that call, given the fallacies I’ve seen you employ so far.

[Voyager]

MrDibble noted that omnibenevolence and omnipotence are contradictory, but didn’t show the proof. Allow me to offer this, totally logical, attempt at one.

Consider the set of logically possible actions A. We exclude impossible ones like making a square circle or creating a rock too heavy to lift. An omnipotent god can clearly do any action in A, by definition.

Now consider the set of actions B which are possible for an omnibenevolent God to do. Clearly B is a subset of A. To show this, consider action b in B. if b is allowed under omnibenevolence, there must be a contradictory action ~b which is not. For instance, if letting a child die is in B, (for whatever obscure reason God has for this) letting the child live must not be in B. Thus the set of actions an omnibenevolent god cannot do, C = A - B, is not empty. Since omnipotence implies being able to do all of A, an omnibenevolent god is not omnipotent. Forget about saying god chooses to not do actions in C. It is not a matter of choice - he cannot do them, since doing so would cause him to violate omnibenevolence. In fact, we can posit another entity, not omnibenevolent, who could do all actions in A - this entity would be more powerful than God, which is a contradiction on God’s nature.

There are no assumptions here about actions in B looking like benevolent ones to us. Cosmosdan is kind of making the assumption that b and ~b are both omnibenevolent in all cases, so that A = B. That’s implicit - I doubt he’ll keep making it once it is laid out like this.

[MrDibble]

Bravo! It’s even better when laid out in set form like that.

[Belrix]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Now consider the set of actions B which are possible for an omnibenevolent God to do. Clearly B is a subset of A. To show this, consider action b in B. if b is allowed under omnibenevolence, there must be a contradictory action ~b which is not. For instance, if letting a child die is in B, (for whatever obscure reason God has for this) letting the child live must not be in B. Thus the set of actions an omnibenevolent god cannot do, C = A - B, is not empty. Since omnipotence implies being able to do all of A, an omnibenevolent god is not omnipotent. Forget about saying god chooses to not do actions in C. It is not a matter of choice - he cannot do them, since doing so would cause him to violate omnibenevolence. In fact, we can posit another entity, not omnibenevolent, who could do all actions in A - this entity would be more powerful than God, which is a contradiction on God’s nature. .
[/QUOTE]

You have a set of things, “C” which God could do but will not do. To do them would violate his nature. I don’t disagree.

Yes, you can posit a different being, who’s omnipotent but not omnibenevolent - a chaotic neutral god for example. Positing him does not make him more powerful than God, just makes him different. Besides, from a Christian point of view, there is no being that is greater than God, that fits your proposed omnipotent but not omnibenevolent entity, so your posited god is an empty set.

Your argument is valid, though. There are things that God could do but does not do because his nature simply excludes those choices. Your argument seems to be that since God will not do something that is against his nature, he’s in fact not omnipotent. If he’s not omnipotent, then he cannot be God.

Am I summarizing correctly?

Perhaps then you’ve uncovered a flaw in the way we present things, in the standard theological “shorthand” that Christians use to present theology.

I’d argue that it’s possible to do more, even as a human, that we’d ever actually do. We, too, are limited by our natures.

I could point a gun at you and threaten to kill you. Could I kill you? Yes. I have the ability, instrument, and necessary index finger to pull the trigger. Would I kill you? No. If you’re no threat to me and my family, you don’t deserve death. My morality, my nature, removes that choice.

Could God do anything? Yes. Would God do anything? No. He cannot violate his nature.

I think you’ve won a point concerning concerning the standard Christian shorthand used to discuss theology. I don’t think you’ve successfully attacked belief in God at all.

Most free-will believing Christians also talk about omniscience rather too easily without delving deeply in what it means to mix free-will and God’s ability to know the future. There’s at least three schools of thought on this that I know right now and chapters and chapters are of many books are dedicated to exploring this subject, too.

Saying “Omniscience” is shorthand, just as “Omnipotence” is. Pointing out that “this word does not mean what you think it means” is, frankly, obvious. But tossing around words like this are standard Christian shorthands for more complicated subjects.

You haven’t won a point here in anything other than, perhaps, grammar or semantics. I’ll concede that in theology “omnipotence” and “omniscience” are more complicated ideas that simply “all powerful” or “all knowing”.

Next you might take on the phrase “born again” with the deep insights that a birth canal is not, in fact, involved.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Not to totally barge in on your discussion so late in the game, but which god are you talking about? What you may assume about god is not what a lot of people assume about god. This general statement makes the discussion rather difficult, as there are people who definitely believe in god and who definitely do not agree with what you’re saying.
[/QUOTE]

It’s the one with the capital G. Not the one you mean.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Belrix]
You have a set of things, “C” which God could do but will not do. To do them would violate his nature. I don’t disagree.

[/quote]

There is no will about it. He cannot do these things and remain omnibenevolent. Someone who is a virgin as part of her definition may choose to not have sex, but she cannot have sex without violating that part of her definition.

Yes, you can posit a different being, who’s omnipotent but not omnibenevolent - a chaotic neutral god for example. Positing him does not make him more powerful than God, just makes him different. Besides, from a Christian point of view, there is no being that is greater than God, that fits your proposed omnipotent but not omnibenevolent entity, so your posited god is an empty set.

The no being greater than god is by the definition of god. If your definition of a god includes tri-omni, then there is no being greater than God, and also no God. The Christian definition contains an inherent contradiction, and so must refer to the null set.
Bi-omni gods have problems also, but we don’t need to go into that here.

Your argument is valid, though. There are things that God could do but does not do because his nature simply excludes those choices. Your argument seems to be that since God will not do something that is against his nature, he’s in fact not omnipotent. If he’s not omnipotent, then he cannot be God.

Am I summarizing correctly?

Close, except as I said above it is not a choice - the problem is inherent in being both omnis at once.

Perhaps then you’ve uncovered a flaw in the way we present things, in the standard theological “shorthand” that Christians use to present theology.

I’d argue that it’s possible to do more, even as a human, that we’d ever actually do. We, too, are limited by our natures.

Absolutely. I agree. We are limited by all sorts of things.

I could point a gun at you and threaten to kill you. Could I kill you? Yes. I have the ability, instrument, and necessary index finger to pull the trigger. Would I kill you? No. If you’re no threat to me and my family, you don’t deserve death. My morality, my nature, removes that choice.

I totally agree. In fact, this is an indication that we don’t have total free will. I’ll return the favor and admit that I couldn’t kill you either. I also couldn’t drive my car into a wall, or jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. And some of us are prevented from doing good by our natures also.

Could God do anything? Yes. Would God do anything? No. He cannot violate his nature.

First, as I mentioned, God can’t do logically impossible things. But God choosing not to do something is different from saying he cannot do something. What is God’s nature? The essence of his godhood, I’d expect. So, if God cannot do logically possible things, he can’t be god. Remember that this limitation comes only from omnibenevolence. Without this requirement, he might not choose to do horrible things (like flood the world) but could while remaining god, so there is no problem. So the difference is not that God would do horrible things if he were not omnibenevolent, but that he could.

I think you’ve won a point concerning concerning the standard Christian shorthand used to discuss theology. I don’t think you’ve successfully attacked belief in God at all.

Most free-will believing Christians also talk about omniscience rather too easily without delving deeply in what it means to mix free-will and God’s ability to know the future. There’s at least three schools of thought on this that I know right now and chapters and chapters are of many books are dedicated to exploring this subject, too.

Saying “Omniscience” is shorthand, just as “Omnipotence” is. Pointing out that “this word does not mean what you think it means” is, frankly, obvious. But tossing around words like this are standard Christian shorthands for more complicated subjects.

You haven’t won a point here in anything other than, perhaps, grammar or semantics. I’ll concede that in theology “omnipotence” and “omniscience” are more complicated ideas that simply “all powerful” or “all knowing”.

Next you might take on the phrase “born again” with the deep insights that a birth canal is not, in fact, involved.

The only version of God I “defeated” is the tri-omni one. The reason atheists can’t prove there is no God is because the concept is so slippery, and as soon as we finish off one version another pops up. But what is your definition of omnipotence? Is it being able to do the set of actions that god will choose to do during eternity? The Bible mentions that the Israelites lost one battle because the enemy had iron chariots, and God couldn’t defeat them. Is that version of God still omnipotent?

[Larry_Borgia]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
MrDibble noted that omnibenevolence and omnipotence are contradictory, but didn’t show the proof. Allow me to offer this, totally logical, attempt at one.

Consider the set of logically possible actions A. We exclude impossible ones like making a square circle or creating a rock too heavy to lift. An omnipotent god can clearly do any action in A, by definition.

Now consider the set of actions B which are possible for an omnibenevolent God to do. Clearly B is a subset of A. To show this, consider action b in B. if b is allowed under omnibenevolence, there must be a contradictory action ~b which is not. For instance, if letting a child die is in B, (for whatever obscure reason God has for this) letting the child live must not be in B. Thus the set of actions an omnibenevolent god cannot do, C = A - B, is not empty. Since omnipotence implies being able to do all of A, an omnibenevolent god is not omnipotent. Forget about saying god chooses to not do actions in C. It is not a matter of choice - he cannot do them, since doing so would cause him to violate omnibenevolence. In fact, we can posit another entity, not omnibenevolent, who could do all actions in A - this entity would be more powerful than God, which is a contradiction on God’s nature.

There are no assumptions here about actions in B looking like benevolent ones to us. Cosmosdan is kind of making the assumption that b and ~b are both omnibenevolent in all cases, so that A = B. That’s implicit - I doubt he’ll keep making it once it is laid out like this.
[/QUOTE]
If I’m a law abiding citizen, that doesn’t mean I can’t break the law, it means I won’t. Willfull restraint isn’t the same thing as impotence.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=Belrix]
Your argument seems to be that since God will not do something that is against his nature, he’s in fact not omnipotent. If he’s not omnipotent, then he cannot be God.

Am I summarizing correctly?

[/QUOTE]

No - the argument is that god is evidentially NOT doing something that IS within his (omnibenevolent) nature. It’s not about him going against his nature at all, it’s about him not acting according to the attributes ascribed to him, and the impossibility of that actually happening.

Or, to put it another way - I’m not saying e.g. “god is omnibenevolenet, he can’t do evil, therefore he isn’t omnipotent”, I’m saying “God is omnibenevolent, natural evil exists, therefore god can’t be omnipotent” (or vice versa). There’s a huge difference between those two arguments. One is about limiting god from the get-go, the other is about allowing god his supposed attributes, looking at the evidence available, and seeing that they do not support those attributes - seeing that the evidence *falsifies *the initial claim. For instance, I could envision a universe where there was an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god, the two characteristics don’t have to be contradictory. But such a universe could not have any natural evil in it.