Umm… OK, but the OP is about religion jumping the shark, and this is a definite case where a religious assertion (“disease is a direct result of original sin”) has turned out to be nonsense, when microscopes, bacteriology, virology & other scientific advances showed us what was actually happening. So if religion was wrong about disease, yet confidently asserted that it had been caused by God, what about all its other God-did-it assertions? Don’t they look similarly shaky? I can’t say exactly when religion jumped the shark for great thinkers, but I’d point to this as an example of why it did.
You’re making the faulty assumption that things can not have both a spiritual and physical dimension. Germ theory does not disprove original sin any more than evolution disproves a Creator.
Religion made the claim that disease had a supernatural cause. We now know that it doesn’t - viruses and bacteria are not supernatural. They’re also not even remotely consistent with the idea of supernatural punishment, they’re simply organisms doing what organisms do - trying to survive & reproduce.
Where is this spiritual dimension, by the way? You’re trying to shore up one unsupported assertion (“disease is God’s punishment”) with another (“things can have a spiritual dimension”), but you haven’t brought anything to back up either of these claims. Don’t you see the problem with this?
Evolution does disprove the versions of the creator who made man out of clay. “Creator” is not a well defined term - there are uncountably many versions of Creator. Those which make falsifiable predictions have pretty much been falsified.
I don’t think I am. I realize all those words are human constructs. We’re using the limits of lanuge to try and define and characterize what is really beyond our ability to to adequatly define and characterize. People keep claiming that words have meaning. True. That’s a big part of my point. I repeat , by supposing an omnimax being you automatically create the possibility that there may be a big picture that we do not grasp. That being the case the POE argument is a good one for any individual to dismiss a benevolent god, but it’s not logically inevitable
It’s true that god’s unknown perspective might be anything. It’s speculation to even suppose such a being. That does not change the argument I’m making.
There’s no point in going into a lot more speculation. You’re doing the same thing here and judging from our human perspective and assuming god pushes us unwillingly into horrible experiences. The very definition of omnimax suggests there are other possibilities.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying by suggesting by supposing such a being we are automatically creating a perspective we cannot have. It goes with the definition. When we suppose a being that encompasses all creation at once, is timeless, and comprehends everything and how all the pieces fit together, we automatically assume rather infinate possibilities.
Or it appears logically unsound because of limited informatrion.
The question is, “how can this be logically sound?” the asnwer is "we don’t know, but the very definition of omnimax creates the possibility that it may be.
So you say. I say the very definitions you’re using say otherwise.
You said, good and evil are human constructs. So is benevolent and it’s rather obvious that human perspective varies quite a bit among cultures, history, age groups. The fact that good and evil varies among humans and the definition of omnimax still allows for a logical counter to the argument by allowing for a larger universal perspective in which all things work together in a benevolent way.
It’s simply a must contained within the definitions.
We know is has a natural cause; we do not know (and cannot empirically know) it doesn’t also have a spiritual cause.
That’s been my whole point in this debate - these spiritual assertions, chifely among them the existance of God, are not subject to proof or disproof either way. They are matters of faith.
Right, so we know that it didn’t happen that way.
We know the rough outlines of how it did happen, and any religion contradicting these is wrong. The Dalai Lama wrote that if Buddhism has a conflict with Science, Buddhism must change. I think the Catholics have pretty much done the same thing, if not so forthrightly. Some (but not all) Protestant denominations, not so much.
We agree on this. I subscribe to the Buddhist/Catholic as well.
Actually yes, it is logically inevitable - the logic is actually quite clear. For any even semi-standard definitions of omnimax, benevolence, good, and evil, an omnimax benevolent god is logically incompatible with this world, in which we percieve evil. The logical argument is properly structured and syntactically correct, and therefore is absolutely bulletproof, from a standpoint of logical inevitability.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the argument doesn’t account for the possiblity of this mystical perspective you’re imagining, and that it is thus flawed or weak. You are flatly wrong - because it does explictly account for such things. Such things are accounted for in the premises - if all the premises are true, then the conclusion is certain, because the argument is logically sound.
This is why I’ve been addressing your unstated imagined ‘omnimax perspective’ (which, by the way, I in no way grant must exist) in terms of the argument’s premises. That’s the correct way to do it. What you’re trying to do, giving him a get-out-of-logic-free card? All that is is flatly misunderstanding how logic works and is used. It’s not terribly compelling, either.
The argument you’re making is flat wrong. The logic is sound, and all variant perspectives real or imagined, public or private, are correctly and completely addressed in the premises. That being how logic works.
Actually the definition of omnimax suggests-nay-proves that if there’s an omnimax god, then he knows our horrible experiences and is deliberately withholding aid - aid which would cost nothing. The only thing is doesn’t prove of what you said is that we’re in our situations unwillingly.
The screams of the victims are what prove that.
Definitions are, by definition (heh), limiting. When you meet a definition you are no longer in the set of things that don’t meet the definition. In the case of “omnipotent”, you are no longer in the set of “beings who lack the ability to come to people’s aid”; if you meet the definition of “omniscient” you are no longer in the set of “beings who are unaware that people need aid”, and if you meet the definition of “omnibenevolent” you are no longer in the set of “beings who will for any reason knowingly withhold aid they are able to give”.
Definitions don’t add possiblities. They remove them.
You apparently have forgotten what “logically sound” means. I presume it’s a momentary lapse and you will soon recover.
And you’re also wrong about what the definitions mean - and what definitions in general mean and do.
You also have forgotten that the definition a word adopts is, generally speaking, the definition the person saying the word intends. In some languages, “pan” means a metal tray; in some it means bread. Which meaning it has properly depends on the intended meaning.
It is possible that there’s some god that thinks “benevolent” means “thinks evil is awesome and would never prevent it”. Sure he can think that, but it doesn’t matter - when I say the word “benevolent”, my defintion is the one that’s meant. And I don’t care how omnipotent or omniscient the god is or how omnimaxified he thinks his perspective is, he still ain’t benevolent by when I say the word, or within the context of the POE when I (or any english-speaking human) argues it.
For which he should be grateful, because it’s only by loving every scream of pain the world ever sees that he’s able to be both omnipotent, omniscient, and real all at the same time.
Eh, I was going to reply to cosmosdan, but then begbert2 made my arguments for me yesterday…suffice to say, god’s mysterious motives don’t change the PoE argument, because the PoE is an argument about human moral judgements and definitions, so limited perspectives arguments don’t alter the soundness of the PoE in the slightest.
At this point it seems that we’re just trading assertions which is not really a discussion. I still disagree.
If the possible perspective of this omnimax being is not being correctly considered then the technicality of whether it’s included or not doesn’t matter. It’s not being included in it’s proper place in the argument. {no need to simply assert how wrong you think I am. I take that for granted at this point}
I am in no way trying to create an out of logic free card. I’m claiming the logic is flawed and I’ve explained why. Your insistance that we judge from out human perspective of good and evil is flat wrong. The argument basically states that an omnimax being cannot logically exist because it fails to meet our definition of benevolent. I repeat, the very suggestion of such a being and the definitions of omniscient , omnipotent, etc. creates the possibility that such a being sees how all creation and events fits together for a benevolent puropse in a way we will never see or grasp. Granted , it may all be nonense or a god that watches our problems for fun, or with indifference, or whatever. Since the possibility of a larger benevolent view is one of numerous possibilites then the idea of logically bulletproof, or inevitable does not apply to this particular argument.
I understand your point but I mantain that the scope of the terms we’re using add possibilities that are being ignored because they don’t support the the POE argument.
It seems to me that you are basically saying that under those terms nobody should ever suffer anything negative ever. Is that it?
I maintain that those terms also create the possibility of a big picture in which all creation and events work together for an ultimately benevolent purpose.
I think your previous point about whatever is happening now being what such an omnimax god must approve of is an interesting one in light of the suggestion that god is timeless and all the religious talk of being in the now. I’ll definately include it in my considerations.
Sure, within the limits of language there’s intended meaning and generally accepted meanings as well. I’m not using special or selective definitions. I’m using the generally accepted ones.
I’m sure you’re know that at times people who love each other must choose tough love as a way of dealing with a situation. If we remove consequences for actions it affects future choices. If we can see and understand that on a small scale we should be able to imagine that possibility on the largest scale. What I’m saying is that an omnimax being sees all choices and events can know exactly what choices and events will move us toward an ultimately benevolent purpose of creation.
Yes, I realize that same being doesn’t have to work that way, but once again, it depends on the purpose of creation.
As I said at the beginning of this reply, I think we’re down to battling assertions on a subject we don’t agree on.
and I obviously disagree. It’s the flaw in he POE argument.
It might be interesting to get other input on this or just a poll on who understands, agrees etc.
Based on a complete and possibly willful misunderstanding of everything about logical arguments, from how they work to what they demonstrate, apparently. If I am incorrect I invite-nay-beg you to explain some possible way that things that are irrelevent to the form of the logical argument can make it unsound, given that soundness is purely and only a function of the argument’s internal form.
It really woud be quite illiminating to learn that I have been completely wrong about everything relating to logic for over a decade.
As has been repeatedly noted, the only possible relationship ‘perspectives’ can have to the argument are in the premises, which is the only place anything about the god is inputted into the argument. It is literally syntactically impossible to insert attributes about the god or the universe or anything else mid-argument; logic itself literally disallows it.
I’m going to put aside the remainder of the ignorant nonsense about logic being flawed or requiring extra support or god getting out of it free, and focus on the real argument you’re trying to float - that it is possible that an omnibenevolent god could choose to knowingly allow suffering in pirsuit of some greater ‘big picture’ goal.
By the definition of omnibenolence, then, the suffering he’s allowing must be necessary to the achievement of this greater goal. I think we can agree on that; the fact that one is painting a masterpiece doesn’t justify randomly kicking the pizza delivery guy, or even the guy bringing you paint.
So, it’s “the end justifies the means”, then. Of course, the critical flaw in your argument is that for an omnipotent being, this is by definition not true. The ends to not justify the means for an omnipotent being. If god wants to make a movie with people dying in it, he doesn’t have to actually kill people to make it happen. Heck, mere mortal moviemakers are able to pull off death-filled movies with virtually no real fatalities! It’s absurd to say that God couldn’t do the same.
It literally doesn’t matter what you imagine the big picture might be; suffering is never necessary to achieve it, because nothing is ever necessary to achieve it. If God wants a particular big picture, he merely snaps his fingers and he has his big picture, fully achieved and complete in every particular. And even the snapping of the fingers was unnecessary, just something he did because he felt like it at the time.
I thought splitting the POE argument in half was pretty clever myself! 
I’m not sure that timelessness makes that much difference to the god, though. My way of visualizing timelessness, like I think I’ve mentioned, is like our relationship with a book or movie. It exists in its entirely before us, from beginning to end, all available to our perusal at once.
The first thing I notice is that timelessness kicks the idea of libertarian free will and nondeterminism in the nads pretty definitively, but then we already knew that. If god views our reality from a timeless perspective then all of our reality in every detail is god’s creation, not ours.
The second thing I notice is that if I was really bothered by the fact Ebenezer Scrooge is a spendthrift jerk, it would still bother me even though I know he turns out nice in the end. Writers and moviemakers have to strike a careful balance when creating unsympathetic protagonists, because if you find yourself really hating them, their eventual redemption is unlikely to salvage the work for you.
I have a good friend who will fastforward parts of movies. She does this because she thinks that the work as a whole is good, but she doesn’t like the particular parts she skips (usually involving sex or nudity). The thing to note here is, if she was making the movie, these parts wouldn’t be in the movie at all.
In the case of our reality, God is making the movie. I am extremely skeptical that he’d include things that were individually so appalling to him that he’d be unwilling to view them. Which to an omnibenevolent god is all suffering - especially if he knew somebody was actually suffering at the time. (Heck, I’m not omnibenevolent, and I wouldn’t knowingly watch a snuff film.)
“Tough love.” Sigh.
Attempts to analogize mortal parenting behavior inevitably collapse in flames due to the dramatic shortage of omnipotent mortal parents. You keep talking about how omnimaxiosity would grant different persepectives, and you overlook the things we know would be different.
Explain tough love to me; I don’t get it. Is it done for kicks? Because the parent gets a gleeful thrill from the suffering of their children? No, wait, you said, “people […] must choose tough love as a way of dealing with a situation”. Okay, so what’s the must crap? Humans must do this because we don’t have any other way of pounding sense into our stupid children. God does. He’s got the sense injection device right there, right next to the instant knowledge pills and the wisdomomifier; all devices that a loving parent would use in a heartbeat rather than resorting to ‘tough love’, because they’re not sadistic monsters who relish seeing their children suffer.
Let’s cut the crap: parents that choose tough love when other better alternatives are available are bad parents. If you don’t even try to tell your kid not to touch the stove, and instead sit back and watch gleefully as they stick their hand on the burner? Yeah, evil parent. True fact.
You say you realize that same being doesn’t have to work that way, but once again, it depends on the purpose of creation? Yes, yes it does. But omnibenevolent gods don’t get to have “because I take glee in watching my children suffer” as a purpose of creation. Definitions are a bitch that way.
Oh here we go. We’re speaking of one specific argument. I’m not suggesting in any way that you lack an understanding of logic. Your assertion that I don’t understand how logic works is no more compelling than your assertion that god’s possible perspective doesn’t matter. It’s simply a rephrase of “is not, is so” and utterly pointless and boring.
You and McDibble insist that in the POE argument god’s different perspective is irrelevant and I am trying to introduce a premise that doesn’t belong. Please correct me if I’m missing something.
I insist that by suggesting an omnimax being in the POE argument that being’s possible perspective must be included for the conclusion of that beings non existence to be refereed to as logically bulletproof or inevitable. I insist that it’s not a new premise being introduced but one already included by the suggestion of said being , and being ignored in the basic POE argument , which is the flaw in the argument. I insist that the very definition{s} of said omnimax being include the possibility of a universal view of all events in creation as benevolent.
I insist that while the POE argument is a perfectly reasonable one for any person to conclude they reject the concept of an omnimax god, to make the claim it somehow logically proves such a being cannot exist goes to far.
Now, if either you or McDibble have anything to add other than your personal assertions rephrased have at it. So far all we’ve gotten is elongated assertions. I’m not intimidated or concerned about your assessment of my own grasp of logic or that tone your posts take when you get fixated on being right. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion. If you can demonstrate I’m incorrect do so, or let’s move on.
It’s a subject that doesn’t lend itself to logic all that well since we’re discussing subjective terms like good and evil and a possible being we can’t really grasp but merely discuss. You yourself said it’s like the the “Can god create a rock so heavy” argument which is logically inconsistent.
and as I said, the very suggestion of an omnimax being includes that being’s possible perspective. If that perspective is not being considered then the conclusion is flawed and incomplete. You introduce the concept of an omnimax unlimited god and then use entirely human perspectives to judge whether that god can exist. Logically unsound.
Except in this case the pizza delivery guy and the guy bringing the paint are part of the masterpiece. All creation remember?
Whenever a conversation like this occurs we come back to describing god in human terms , which is understandable since that’s our perspective and the words we have. Still, we have to consider that such language falls short and is only a feeble attempt at describing the indescribable.
Does a timeless being have a goal?
. No it isn’t and end justifies the means argument. If the journey itself, the experience of choice, real or illusion, is what it’s all about then the end is the means.
Of course, from god’s perspective. What if the big picture is a universe where duality and choices exist. What would our perspective be in that kind of universe? The perspective of choice? good? Evil? linear time? life? death?
Isn’t it true that in most religions we are spirit that are only temporarily in mortal bodies?
Right. There’s a passage in the Book of Mormon that says, “the course of god is one eternal round” We have a point of view but god would have infinite viewing points encompassing all things and every moment in time that we see as linear.
Preface with a big IF. I tend to think free will is part of the overall illusion and experience. I also think that as many of the world religions say, we are connected in a way we don’t comprehend. Rather than being created by something else , we are part of a whole creation and a player in creating. Like the analogies of single drops in one vast ocean, or different cells in one functioning body. If our conscious is part of the whole consciousness then we are not hapless puppets but co creators experiencing what we helped and are still helping to create.
You wouldn’t watch a movie in which people are blown to pieces? Play a video game where you kill people?
I’m not fond of them myself. I’m only saying that if we can understand the premise of tough love we ought to be able to imagine a possible benevolent total for creation and what , from our perspective, appears to be unnecessary suffering.
The point of tough love is the experience , choice and consequence. I insert the knowledge into my kids head by telling him something true , that choice x will yield bad results. The experience yields something else besides knowledge.
That’s why I say the experience itself , the illusion of choice and consequences and all that duality brings must be the point. So when you say, “god has the sense injection device right there” maybe that’s exactly what we’re experiencing. We perceive it as linear time, good, bad , pleasure and or suffering. to an omnimax god it’s the sense injection device. Part of the whole ominmax thing.
That’s part of why it’s sorta pointless to discuss an omnimax being in human terms and then speak of logical inevitability. definitions are indeed a bitch.
This is the internet - all I can do is assert. Especially when you call all my arguments assertions. (Which I suppose is technically correct, because I am asserting that my arguments are arguments.)
For the nth time, the perspective of the omnimax being is already accounted for. Real slow, here’s how:
Step 1) The word omnibenevolence is defined. This definition explitly defines, and thus limits, which perspectives are compatible with omnipotent beings. As words go it’s a pretty hard-edge definition; you can’t be semi-benevolent to qualify. Thus the limits it imposes are pretty hard as well.
Step 2) The god is asserted to be omnibenevolent, typically by the diety’s proponent. In asserting that the god is omnibenevolent, the proponent accepts the limitations on allowed behavior that the word explicity describes - whether the proponent is aware of this or not.
That’s as far as it normally should have to go. But sometimes:
Step 3) Shrug off the bullshit. Some proponents would prefer to have their cake and eat it too, to have their unliftable rock and see it lifted. An example of this is when they wish to call a god omnibenevolent - and then shrug off limitations on behavior that that word explicitly entails. They do this because they want to be able to call their god benevolent regardless of his actions. These sort of ‘mysterious ways’ arguments are obviously definitionally incorrect and may be safely discarded.
Step 4) Shrug off more bullshit. Some proponents for whatever reason reject that god’s mysterious ways are even related to the diety’s benevolence status, and thus try to carve out a whole new hole in the side of the argument to cram the mysterious ways into instead. This is difficult to argue against, as the only real response is to gape in amazement and back away slowly.
I’m now going to back away from the question of whether ‘pespectives’ belong anywhere in the argument other than in the question of whether the god is able to be omnibenevolent (and thus omnimax) while holding those perspectives. If you still wish to assert that perspectives deserve some other insertion into the argument, there is little I can do to stop you.
Suffice to say, the “Can god create a rock so heavy” argument is logically consistent - it proves that even omnipotence is not a free liscence to do the logically impossible. The argument has even convinced many theists to accept this conclusion, which they wouldn’t have had to do if they could have shown the argument was inconsistent.
It probably goes without saying that I assert that the current subject is similarly compatible with logic.
It’s a good thing that the being’s perspective was explicitly considered when you labeled it “omnibenevolent”, then.
I will add, it’s not me that’s asserting that your god is omnibenevolent; I’m not forcing any limits on its perspective at all. It’s you that is making the assertion that Mr. God-in-question is infinitely and unqualifiedly and unrelentingly and unconcedingly and undebatingly benevolent. I’m merely pointing out that if he is, that claim about his personality means something.
I think it’s 100% obvious that my point was that to if an omnibenevolent god allows suffering then the suffering he’s allowing must be necessary to the achievement of this greater goal. (That being what I said.) Taking the examples I gave of things that wouldn’t be necessary to the achievement of this greater goal and claiming that they are is not much of a gotcha.
Nothing’s undescribable - it’s either in the set of omnibenevolent things, or it’s not. It’s either in the set of omniscient things, or its not. It’s either in the set of omnipotent things, or it’s not. Even if it changes later it’s definable both now and after the change.
Of course, I readily concede that it can be sometimes difficult to tell which sets an entity qualifies to be in. Fortunately in this case I don’t have to figure it out; you have declared that the god is omnimax, so we know it axiomatically. If you were to decide that we didn’t know the god was omnimax, the POE would cease to apply to it, of course.
Anything that does anything has a goal, or it wouldn’t bother to do anything. Are you supposing that your god is totally inactive?
I’ll note that a completely inactive and goalless god is entirely within the realm of discussion: it’s called “deism”, among other situations. However I can easily note that apathy is not particularly compatible with omnibenevolence, which takes apathetic gods out of the set of dieties I need to consider for this argument.
Nope - you have a categorization error. Which is pretty understandable, because it’s not like I ever bothered to define what the terms “ends” or “means” meant.
End = a goal that god directly and actively desires.
Mean = something that itself is not directly and actively desired by the god, but instead is only tolerated/bothered with because it is a necessary step to achieve an end or another mean towards an end.
EndMean = something that is both directly and actively desired by the god, and also a necessary step to achieve an end or another mean towards an end.
So. People dying in agony: an end, a mean, or an endmean? If it’s an end or an endmean, then the god directly and actively desires that people die in agony, and thus the god isn’t benevolent. If it’s just a mean, then god need not want it and in fact being benevolent must (by definition) actively dislike it and seek to prevent any antibenevolent means if he could do so without compromising a transcending end.
Of course, we know by definition that omnipotent beings don’t have means or endmeans - they literally don’t exist for them because necessary steps are explicit failures of omnipotence. Everything they do or tolerate is itself an end, which is to say, something they directly and actively desire - or at least don’t care about either way. (Though apathy about such suffering is incompatible with benevolence, as previously noted.)
If god is omniscient and timeless and has choice as a goal, then he’s got problems, because choice is separately incompatible with either of the two (presuming the omniscience includes the ability to predict the future). Like unliftable rocks, this isn’t something even omnipotence can beat.
And if he wants duality, then he wants evil (sometimes), and thus isn’t omnibenevolent. (Remember that ‘omni’ in ‘omnibenevolent’ means something too - it strips out apathy of or sometimes-conditional-acceptance of evil. Pesky words, always having meanings…)
And earthly suffering is still real suffering - unless you want to argue that we’re not real. Which can be an interesting argument! It’s okay to lock a Sim in a room with no bathroom and let him wallow in his own filth until he dies because he’s not real. -BUT (and you know there’s always a butt when I’m around), somebody who does this is not omnibenevolent towards Sims. So presuming that a Sim is the one making the argument, the entity would not qualify for the POE. (Which is why I’m able to exist. ;)) Similarly, humans can safely say that no omnimax god is benevolent towards us-as-humans, regardless of what the diety may think of the demons playing the video game of life.
(I really like the ‘video game/dungeon master’ theistic model. It is fully compatible with and explanatory of reality, and unlike every diety of every organized and disorganized religion, the divine DM/player actually comes off as not being a jerk. Except from the standpoint of us game characters, of course.)
Agreement! (Though I admit agreeing with the Book of Mormon doesn’t do much for me.)
I dunno about you, by my conscousness is functinally distinct from the consciousnesses of people around me. Of course we can be pretty confident that Sonic the Hedgehog and Bilbo Baggins thought that about themselves too - the presumption of distinct consciousness is usually part of the character definition. Which doesn’t mean Sonic doesn’t constantly get injured/killed or that Bilbo never took any lumps - it just means that don’t care about their well-being enough to prevent it.
“Snuff movie” means a movie where the ‘actor’ was actually tortured and killed on camera, deliberately and with malice aforethought. They’re very illegal to make, for obvious reasons.
I watch movies and play games with fake death in them all the time. I can do this because no actual suffering went into the making of the picture, and I don’t care about faked and unfelt suffering.
Omnipotence means that from every perspective the suffering was unnecessary. Including any magic omnimax perspectives you imagine up.
Which means you’re saying we ought to be able to imagine a possible benevolent total for creation and unnecessary suffering. I disagree for the obvious reason that “benevolence” means something.
If I erased all memory of having that experience, what would your child have got out of it? Nothing. One pillar of your argument just collapsed.
Is remembering an experience the same as experiencing it again, especially regarding suffering? Nope. The second pillar of your argument just collapsed.
Do we have any reason to think that god can’t implant knowledge/memories/whichever without us vicariously experiencing it in full living color and agony? Aside from your assertions I mean? Nope - and in fact omnimaxness proves that forcing us through primary experience is unnecessary because nothing undesired is necessary for an omnipotent god. Utterly devoid of support, your argument drops to the floor and shatters.
OKay, When this book is published I want my picture on one inside jacket. You get first pick on which coast to do the book tour on.
I meant discussion with new ideas and appraoches vs a repetative assertion of the same argument. You have brought arguments but part of it seemed to be a pointless repition of “god’s perspective doesn’t count” and “you can’t insert a new premise”
I’m not sure why omnibenevolence is a neccessary {or real} term. I’d say god is, or should be, constantly and consistantly benevolent. People are not consistantly benevolent and our judgement is fawed. Sometimes people cause harm while trying to help. That wouldn’t happen with god.
Regradless, It occurs to me that what you’re ultimately saying is nothing negative should happen ever, never mind unnessecary suffereing. By your terms a twinge of anguish is unnessecary. Is that it?
The problem I see with that is that now we’re talking about an existance without negatives, without choices, without duality. which is fine unless the journey, the experience of choice, good and bad consequences, is the point.
I accept the standard definition with the understanding that omniscient and omnipotent are also in the mix. I also note that while benevolent has a generally accpeted definition it is also a rather subjective term.
Not my intent. I’m working with the definitions and all the possibilities they imply. Bulletproof, or inevitable logic requires more scrutiny and a higher standard to support the claim.
Well we’ve gone from, god’s perspective doesn’t count , to it’s already included. Which is it? Which one of us is trying to carve out something new from the same old package? My objection is not to the POE argument as a reasonable position. My objection here has been the claim logical inevitibility and how it somehow proves such a being cannot exist. It isn’t inevitible so it doesn’t *prove *anything.
I’m drunk with power.
It’s a logic word game and demonstrates nothing. It’s major component and it’s flaw is the assumption that god needs to life anything or that physical weight matters to the being proposed to have created physics. It’s flaw is assigning limited human qualities to something unlimited. That’s the same flaw contained in the POE. Assigning human terms to an omnimax being may be useful for discussion given the limits of language, but it can’t reasonbly be associated with something logically inevitable.
I’ve noted the similarities.
combined with omniscient and omnipotent. Let’s also note , again {sigh} that when you apply the human pov to said being you are not considering it’s perspective. This is what I mean by simply rephrasing the same point.
more later.
There’s no confusion on my part about this. It’s irellevant to the point I’m making.
I know what your point is. Since mine is about perspective my comment was rellevant rather than a gotcha. It’s not just the individual journey we’re talking about or what lesson an individual learns from a certain incident. We’re talking about all creation and how it all fits together and works. Someone might argue that a baby suffering from a painful illness can’t learn a lesson but it’s not just that baby we’re talking about. We’re talking about how every event ever fits together in creation. THat’s something an omnimax being would comprehend, but we cannot. So, the guy who fetches the paint, the pizza delvery guy, the sick baby, the village destroyed by a typhoon, you me, the rich the poor, are all part of the masterpeice. We as humans will never have a place from which we can view this masterpeice. At most we will catch glimpses of small portions. Some beautiful, some very dark.
By the difference in our limited perspective and the all emcompassing one of an omnimax being it’s understandable that we won’t see how the dark colors fit in, but the very definition of omnimax leaves the possibility open that all events work together in a benevolent way. This is not a mysterious ways redux. It’s a point of logic based on the definitions we’re working with.
no. I’m saying a goal implies linear time and we’re talking about a being usually desribed as timeless. I don’t see a goal in the normal sense as in “something to be accomplished down the road” The great “I AM” doesn’t need a goal.
<snipped for times sake>
I really don’t have time to go over every detail of your argument. It’s fairly repetative. You continue to ascribe human traits to an omnimax being while the very definitions we ascribe to that being puts it beyond those limitations.
I understand the tendency given our limits but it just ends with us going in circles covering basically the same ground.
This bit here is a nice little word game you’re playing , insinuating I’m claiming a omnimax being can’t do something. It’s unsuccessful but nice try. My argument has been about the lack of limits of an omnimax being.
One last time. the very definition of omnimax includes the possibility of a perspective where all events in the universe fit together in a benevolent whole. It’s that simple. Since that is the case the POE argument cannot be accurately described as logically inevitable or bulletproof.
Your claim has been that I’m ultimately ignoring the definition of benevolent to create some new twist or approach to the mysterious ways argument. I’m not. I’m saying the other definitions involved remove any legitimate claim to logical inevitability. End of argument.
I’ve been saying that God’s perspective isn’t a magical hammer with which to break the logic. It is accounted for, though - explicitly. Which is one of two reasons that it’s not a magic hammer with which to break the argument.
The other reason of course is that things that aren’t mentioned in an argument are logically incapable of affecting the result (excepting where they make premises untrue). I know this because I know how logic works, and so I have no choice but to dismiss your assertions to the effect that logic works differently.
And you can’t add new premises to a logical argument without being talking about a completely different and separate argument. Everybody knows that.
This here is pretty interesting stuff - you are pretty blatantly wishing to call your god omnibenevolent - and then shrugging off limitations on behavior that that word explicitly entails, and doing this because you want to be able to call your god benevolent regardless of his actions. Exactly as I said.
A mean, look at it. Right off the bat you lay the groundwork for an argument that “omnibenevolence” doesn’t mean anything. Then you turn around and give the stardard definition, including the interesting note that an omnibenevolent God couldn’t or wouldn’t cause harm in the process of doing good. This is interesting because it’s a statement that completely destroys your argument, yet it comes from your own mouth.
Then you proceed to note that your own definition of omnibenevolence is indeed incompatible with an existence with negatives or duality. (Choices are another somewhat complex discussion that requires us to do free will, so I’ll merely point out that there can be choices with an omnipotent god, for some definitions of ‘choice’.)
And then -and this is the crux of your argument- you reject the conclusions you drew from your own definition, and say in effect ‘well omnibenevolent beings can like doing things for the journey too because I like that explanation and I get what I want and definitions be damned.’
And then for a capper you turn around and say that you accept the standard definitions (with the understanding that with the addition of unrelated factors you get to pretend omnibenevolence doesn’t mean what you say it does).
In all seriousness, doesn’t the cognitive dissonance here give you tintinnabulation? This self-contradiction here is why you are unable to convince me of the correctness of your argument.
The thing is, though, your being wrong doesn’t prove that your God doesn’t exist. It proves that he’s not omnibenevolent, but so what? You like the way he his. He kills babies with volcanoes for fun as part of the journey, but that’s all cool.
You’re also deliberately inventing possibilities that you yourself know they don’t imply because you prefer the conclusions you get that way. You are attempting to change the definitions, but you don’t get to work with defintions the way you get to mold clay. Logic requires a higher standard than that.
God’s perspective is already explicitly accounted for in the premises via the definition of omnibenevolent and the claim that he has it, and attempts to insert it into the argument at any other point don’t count. That is the argument and always has been.
It’s inevitable and proves that an omnibenevolent omnimax being cannot exist.
It demonstrates exactly what it claims to and virtually everyone understands that, which is why virtually everyone accepts that god can’t do the logically impossible.
I’m mildly curious - do you think God can do the logically impossible? It would explain why you think he can be benevolent and not-benevolent at the same time, though you still run afoul of the fact you said your god was not not-benevolent when you said he was omnimax.
You’re still wrong this time too.
It destroys the point you’re trying to make.
By the definition of omnipotence, the diety can create his masterpiece with killing babies in typhoons. If he wants to. If he doesn’t enjoy killing the babies.
Killing babies is awesome.
A moment ago the goalpost was that creating a masterpiece was his goal.
But this timeless thing - haven’t I already presented an argument in this thread that timeless beings necessarily have to exist in their own linear time in able to actually do things? Well regardless, I’m sure you’ve seen it around. So even if a goal implies linear time, god’s still able to have them, assuming he isn’t completely inert and impotent.
The words in my game are “omnipotent”, “omniscient”, and “omnibenevolent”.
If the being is omnibenevolent, then the being is omnibenevolent even if they’re also omnipotent and omniscient. If the addition of those things makes them non-omnibenevolent, then they’re non-omnibenevolent. This is simply how definitions work - regardless of how many circles you try to end-run around them.
You are wrong about what the definitions imply. And that ends your argument.
I’ll try to be brief to keep going in circles to a minimum.
There is no cognitive dissonance for me since I understand my argument and maintain my argument is correct.
You contine to claim that god’s perspective is included and then continue to argue benevolence from your human mortal perspective. That demonstrates to me you don’t really get it. Here you talk about dead babies. If we’re talking about god doesn’t that include the concept that we, as part of creation, are not limited to these mortal, physical bodies?
You didn’t answer directly but I assume you agree that if god is truly benevolent then there should never be anything negative ever. With an omnimax being no one moment of anguish would ever be neccessary. It’s an interesting thought but brings us to the big question. If we are part of a creation rather than part of a random universe then why creation at all. That’s why I keep coming back to the experience , the journey itself must be the point. The temporary experience of duality and choice, good and bad, which are ultimately as fading as the seasons.
Now I’m inserting new premises again which is a flag on the logic play right? THat’s why the POE argument, as thought provoking as it is, isn’t bulletproof. When you start it by proposing an omnimax being you open up a lot of possibilities. Ultimately all the POE argument really demonstrates is that from our limited perspective , such a god doesn’t appear benevolent.
I think if anything like god exists such a being is incomprehensible by us. I think such a being would be logically consistent. As humans we should accept the idea that there are still things to discover that are now inconcievable to us, just as things we now take for granted were inconcievable to people of the past.
Yes, because we’re limited by our language analogies and examples will be in human terms.
Let’s try a very simple one. If god has just given us the best RPG ever and ultimately no soul is really harmed, would that be benevolent?
Of course I’m pulling this out of thin air, but it’s one of the possibilities when you propose an omnimax being, just as god as a cruel observer who loves to watch us squirm is. That’s the problem with these discussions and why I reject describing the POE argument as inevitable. You start by proposing a being of infinate possibilities and then try to “logically” eliminate one. It’s foolishness.
You just made this up and there isn’t anything neccessary about it.
Well we’ve written a crapload and utterly failed to convince each other. What a surprise.
Yes, I know: from the perspective of the people saying he’s benevolent, he isn’t benevolent. That’s exactly the point - you are claiming omnibenevolence for your god because it sounds cool, and then immediately try and erase all meaning from the word because if the word has meaning, then the POE proves that your evil-loving duality god isn’t real - or isn’t omnibenevolent. Logically you have to pick one, but you don’t wanna.
I understand your argument too you see.
I will add that adding premises wouldn’t help anyway, because when you do so you make a different argument, and anything that happens with that new argument doesn’t change the fact that the original actual POE remains unaltered and unopposed. Basically when you try to claim you can add premises you’re trying to move a goalpost to an argument that you can actually succeed with.
And logically speaking, when you add “God is not omnibenevolent” to the premises, the new argument can indeed be used to prove that God exists. And that the sky is green. And that elephants wear tutus while shopping in supermarkets. Such is the nature of a contradiction in the premises; a quirk of the system, believe it or not. Not that arguments based on such contradictions are particularly persuasive - they are read as proofs by contradiction, which -surprise surprise- prove that one or more of the premises that’s causing the contradiction isn’t true.
…and thus you get to pretend that the word “benevolence” has no meaning, right?
Hmm, still not convincing. If you actually thought that your god was ineffable you wouldn’t call it benevolent, because it would be too ineffable to so label. And then the POE wouldn’t disprove it. But your god is plenty effable until the instant saying otherwise helps your arguments - only then do the mysterious ways kick in. Which is why the POE stomps it flat.
Doesn’t change the fact that you’ve got your goalposts on wheels. And the argument’s in human terms anyway; if human terms don’t describe your god you would refuse to call it omnibenevolent.
A wise man once said:
I’m actually pretty thick, as air goes. And (as’s just been demonstrated again) all the possibilities you’re coming up with are already accounted for in the definitions of the words in the premises.
And, so logic is foolishness now? I don’t seem to recall you answering whether you think God can do the logically impossible (like simultaneously being omnibenevolent and being not omnibenevolent, for example). Do you?
It’s my argument - of course I made it up, though it’s based on definitions that I didn’t make up. Specifically, that change requires a linear timeline, because if you can’t tell the difference between a ‘before’ and an ‘after’, then no change has occured. Thus in the abscence of a linear timeline there can be no change, and thus no action, or even the changing of thoughts that characterise sentient thought. (As in, prevent it from being a static mindless carving of unchanging ideas.)
If your god isn’t experiencing linear time from his own perspective then he’s an inert statue. Necessarily. Which would explain the level of interaction he’s had with this world, but probably isn’t what you’re going for.
Of couse, omnibenevolence necessitates things you’re not going for too (like an intolerance of duality), and that hasn’t stopped you from discarding reason in order to accept it but not it’s consequences, so I fully expect you to discard reason in order to state that your god doesn’t experience a passage of time too.
I can’t convince with reason what wasn’t arrived at by reason.