Can God possibly be maximally great?

[sqishy]

There is no size for infinite buddy[...]

That's what I am saying, yes.



I think maximally great is what they call him because he is all knowing, all seeing and all powerful.

The problem I then have (suspending issues with the above) is that this God is also absolute/eternal. This cannot work with the above qualities. Keep the above or keep the absolute/etc, not both.

[Flapjack]

The problem I then have (suspending issues with the above) is that this God is also absolute/eternal. This cannot work with the above qualities. Keep the above or keep the absolute/etc, not both.
Of course irl it doesn't work but I think you're supposed to look past that and just imagine someone with infinite power, there is nothing he cannot do ya know?

[sqishy]

Of course irl it doesn't work but I think you're supposed to look past that and just imagine someone with infinite power, there is nothing he cannot do ya know?

We have to define infinite power though, through what the range of power already is. You can have infinite 'concentration' of power within a certain range of meaning, or you could have an infinite range of meaning that the power is finitely used in. Power means different things in different contexts, and it could be that a being would have infinite power over certain aspects of the world, but not others.

I presume infinite power here in this thread means both infinite range of meaning and infinite concentration within that range, but I'm not happy with the general use of 'INFINITY' as though there is just one easy one-size-fits-all (no pun of maths intended) meaning/kind to it. I like specifics here, for which I am still not getting much of a response from my previous comments on that. :\

[Sailor Mars]

I appreciate your moderating of this thread, but I do have a reason for such a question...

Gotcha, but still, try to keep it on topic.
///
As far as your theory goes, though, you're wrong right from the beginning.
God has yet to teach man anything. The bible: made by man, for man. Prayer: made by man, for man. God has nothing to do with either, besides the fact that they're linked to religion and therefore linked to God. He does not teach. He can't.

God is a fictitious creature made up by fools in robes who craves power and explanation, yet were too lazy to work for both. Therefore, he cannot be maximally great. He cannot be great, or bad, or sick, or evil, or wicked, or kind.

[PlasmaHam]

Gotcha, but still, try to keep it on topic.
///
As far as your theory goes, though, you're wrong right from the beginning.
God has yet to teach man anything. The bible: made by man, for man. Prayer: made by man, for man. God has nothing to do with either, besides the fact that they're linked to religion and therefore linked to God. He does not teach. He can't.

God is a fictitious creature made up by fools in robes who craves power and explanation, yet were too lazy to work for both. Therefore, he cannot be maximally great. He cannot be great, or bad, or sick, or evil, or wicked, or kind.

I'll stay on topic, but you are going at this from a purely atheist point of view. I was answering the question of why God lets bad things happen from a theological and philosophical standpoint, not a debate on whether God in real or not.

[sqishy]

I'll stay on topic, but you are going at this from a purely atheist point of view. I was answering the question of why God lets bad things happen from a theological and philosophical standpoint, not a debate on whether God in real or not.

What about a debate on whether God is conscious or not??

[Flapjack]

We have to define infinite power though, through what the range of power already is. You can have infinite 'concentration' of power within a certain range of meaning, or you could have an infinite range of meaning that the power is finitely used in. Power means different things in different contexts, and it could be that a being would have infinite power over certain aspects of the world, but not others.

I presume infinite power here in this thread means both infinite range of meaning and infinite concentration within that range, but I'm not happy with the general use of 'INFINITY' as though there is just one easy one-size-fits-all (no pun of maths intended) meaning/kind to it. I like specifics here, for which I am still not getting much of a response from my previous comments on that. :\
Yeah I completely agree with you buddy however this is religion we're talking about... they're not known for specifics xD

[sqishy]

Yeah I completely agree with you buddy however this is religion we're talking about... they're not known for specifics xD

Theology would be more specific, but general populace not so much. I like to think of religious belief and practice as like most other 'specialised directions' of thought - the larger proportion of people aware of it do some things but not a lot, a smaller proportion are relatively well-read and do more, and minority still are more like experts. It's part of human nature, nothing elitist about it!


Regardless to that though, I'm open to thinking of some small hypotheticals even.

[Porpoise101]

What about a debate on whether God is conscious or not??
Yes I would say that God is both conscious and unconscious. In my view, God has an infinite amount of conscious aspects of itself, yet is not an organized, perfectly synchronized being.

[dxcxdzv]

Am I the only one who finds extremely disturbing all those speculations about God that you hold for most of them as truth?

Like, no offense but sometimes when I look at a ROTW God's related thread I'm really not comfortable with the lack of rigour.

[Leprous]

I'll stay on topic, but you are going at this from a purely atheist point of view. I was answering the question of why God lets bad things happen from a theological and philosophical standpoint, not a debate on whether God in real or not.

Actually they were from an objective point of view. Mars stated facts, not opinions. Prayers are man made, so is the bible. There is no denying to that.

[Porpoise101]

Actually they were from an objective point of view. Mars stated facts, not opinions. Prayers are man made, so is the bible. There is no denying to that.
A printed Bible is man made, but to a Christian it is the record of the Jewish people and then later the story of Christ and his followers. Many parts are considered to be revealed from God. So to them it is only partially man made.

Prayers are cultural many times, so I would call it man made.

[Leprous]

A printed Bible is man made, but to a Christian it is the record of the Jewish people and then later the story of Christ and his followers. Many parts are considered to be revealed from God. So to them it is only partially man made.

Prayers are cultural many times, so I would call it man made.

But how do you know if they didn't just write some stuff? Nobody knows if a god is involved. Literall nobody knows if these people were told these things because well, book. Writers = rip.

[Porpoise101]

But how do you know if they didn't just write some stuff? Nobody knows if a god is involved. Literall nobody knows if these people were told these things because well, book. Writers = rip.
At least for the OT, the Jewish chroniclers had an incentive to be as accurate as possible because the future of their culture and religion was in jeopardy. Much of it probably came from oral tradition, which definitely muddles things. The rest, say what you will about it.

[Leprous]

At least for the OT, the Jewish chroniclers had an incentive to be as accurate as possible because the future of their culture and religion was in jeopardy. Much of it probably came from oral tradition, which definitely muddles things. The rest, say what you will about it.

Well even for the OT how do we know what's true and what not? There are sure historical facts in there, but what about the religious part?

[Porpoise101]

Well even for the OT how do we know what's true and what not? There are sure historical facts in there, but what about the religious part?
There is no way to tell as far as I know. I am not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim so I might be missing something. In Hinduism, it is pretty clear that the texts were made by men, and few would seriously claim otherwise.

[sqishy]

Yes I would say that God is both conscious and unconscious. In my view, God has an infinite amount of conscious aspects of itself, yet is not an organized, perfectly synchronized being.

I'm not sure what you mean.

- - - - - - - -

Reise has a good point, while I'm at it.

[Porpoise101]

I'm not sure what you mean.
I was waiting for you to say that.

The soul is a part of/derived from God in my view. Since the soul is immortal and transcends the physical, I believe that it is divine since a God is the only other thing that could transcend the physical and be immortal (as far as I know). So while humans and animals are conscious beings, the divinity with us is not aware and conscious. Nor is it coordinated as we all live separate lives.

[sqishy]

I was waiting for you to say that.

You got me there. :D



The soul is a part of/derived from God in my view. Since the soul is immortal and transcends the physical, I believe that it is divine since a God is the only other thing that could transcend the physical and be immortal (as far as I know). So while humans and animals are conscious beings, the divinity with us is not aware and conscious. Nor is it coordinated as we all live separate lives.

So you are saying that the realm we live in is a subset of (and so a part of) God, so part of God is conscious in that sense. With this though, since God also transcends the realm we know, it is not conscious 'there'.

So part of it is conscious? (It would make sense for me then.)

[Porpoise101]

So part of it is conscious? (It would make sense for me then.)
Yes, part of it is conscious because we are conscious. And that part is bound to earthly beings.

[sqishy]

Yes, part of it is conscious because we are conscious. And that part is bound to earthly beings.

Alright, I get you then.

[Bleid]

No god can't be maximally great! Why is there so many natural disasters? Why can he not confirm his existence? It seems as though he created the earth and left! For the record though, I am a strong atheist.

There's an implicit assumption here that if there was a God, and this God was maximally great, that it would not allow natural disasters to occur, and would ensure its existence be confirmed.

And to that assumption, I would have to ask how you would have knowledge of what a maximally great being would consider a proper use of its time?

[Flapjack]

There's an implicit assumption here that if there was a God, and this God was maximally great, that it would not allow natural disasters to occur, and would ensure its existence be confirmed.

And to that assumption, I would have to ask how you would have knowledge of what a maximally great being would consider a proper use of its time?
I'd say a good use of his time would be to ensure that when crating a planet and creating life that he ensures that planet would not kill the people he had created.

[Bleid]

I'd say a good use of his time would be to ensure that when crating a planet and creating life that he ensures that planet would not kill the people he had created.

I won't attempt to play functional manager to a maximally great being and exclaim about what would be a good use of its time, but I will explain what I find problematic about that type of reasoning.

Consider if we were baboons in a Zoo, or if it makes you more comfortable - consider I was a baboon in a Zoo, which may not be far from the truth.

Now, I do not necessarily know why I'm in the Zoo, nor why there are people staring at me, nor do I know if I'll ever leave it. So, would it be fair of me, as the gorgeous baboon that I am, to postulate about whether or not the zoo keepers are using their time appropriately by keeping me and the other animals here?

I do not understand what the Zoo keepers desire, nor do I understand what they're doing keeping me in my exhibit. Only they do.

[Flapjack]

I won't attempt to play functional manager to a maximally great being and exclaim about what would be a good use of its time, but I will explain what I find problematic about that type of reasoning.

Consider if we were baboons in a Zoo, or if it makes you more comfortable - consider I was a baboon in a Zoo, which may not be far from the truth.

Now, I do not necessarily know why I'm in the Zoo, nor why there are people staring at me, nor do I know if I'll ever leave it. So, would it be fair of me, as the gorgeous baboon that I am, to postulate about whether or not the zoo keepers are using their time appropriately by keeping me and the other animals here?

I do not understand what the Zoo keepers desire, nor do I understand what they're doing keeping me in my exhibit. Only they do.
That would be a fine allergy if you accepted god was not all powerful or the baboon was in danger and the zoo keepers could easily stop it but chose not to.

[Bleid]

That would be a fine allergy if you accepted god was not all powerful or the baboon was in danger and the zoo keepers could easily stop it but chose not to.

Consider the same analogy above, but the zoo keepers were all powerful, I had a leopard in the cage with me, and the zoo keepers can easily stop it but choose not to.

And still I would say,

I do not understand what the Zoo keepers desire, nor do I understand what they're doing keeping me in my exhibit. Only they do.

[Uniquemind]

Consider the same analogy above, but the zoo keepers were all powerful, I had a leopard in the cage with me, and the zoo keepers can easily stop it but choose not to.

And still I would say,

You also have to remember in this scenario the zoo keepers don't follow the laws of time or space as we experience them.

So these "zoo keepers" can basically undo any event experienced by us, at any point in time.


God can't be judged by it's creation period. It's a whole new paradigm.

[Flapjack]

Consider the same analogy above, but the zoo keepers were all powerful, I had a leopard in the cage with me, and the zoo keepers can easily stop it but choose not to.

And still I would say,
If the zoo keepers were all powerful and chose not to safe the animals then they are nasty and evil.

[Bleid]

If the zoo keepers were all powerful and chose not to safe the animals then they are nasty and evil.

The issue with this is that there's no straightforward way (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem) to go from (what you or I view as nasty or evil) to (what a God/deity views as nasty or evil).

Even going from (what you view as nasty or evil) to (what I view as nasty or evil) is not a straightforward connection, since in the case of the leopard and the zookeepers and I, I would not consider it nasty or evil of the zookeepers to not save me in that instance.

So, it would seem to be an act of overconfidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect) to claim what a God can or cannot be, based on our opinions alone.

In keeping with what Uniquemind said eloquently:

You also have to remember in this scenario the zoo keepers don't follow the laws of time or space as we experience them.

So these "zoo keepers" can basically undo any event experienced by us, at any point in time.


God can't be judged by it's creation period. It's a whole new paradigm.

A deity/God, if it exists, is beyond our scope of understanding to begin with.

[Flapjack]

The issue with this is that there's no straightforward way (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem) to go from (what you or I view as nasty or evil) to (what a God/deity views as nasty or evil).

Even going from (what you view as nasty or evil) to (what I view as nasty or evil) is not a straightforward connection, since in the case of the leopard and the zookeepers and I, I would not consider it nasty or evil of the zookeepers to not save me in that instance.

So, it would seem to be an act of overconfidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect) to claim what a God can or cannot be, based on our opinions alone.


Yes it is my opinion that killing babies is bad and yes could think that that is the best thing to do but I do not think we should be worshipping a god that does that, or calling him all kind.

[Bleid]

Yes it is my opinion that killing babies is bad and yes could think that that is the best thing to do but I do not think we should be worshipping a god that does that, or calling him all kind.

This is not about worshipping, killing babies, or calling anything all-kind, however.

[Flapjack]

This is not about worshipping, killing babies, or calling anything all-kind, however.
But it is. As far as I am aware maximally great refers to the belief that god is all knowing, all kind and all powerful and all whatever else the religious guys think he is. God cannot be both all kind and all powerful when babies are dies and there is so much evil in the world.

[Bleid]

But it is. As far as I am aware maximally great refers to the belief that god is all knowing, all kind and all powerful and all whatever else the religious guys think he is. God cannot be both all kind and all powerful when babies are dies and there is so much evil in the world.

Based on the creation's idea of what all-kind implies. Not the God, which, isn't within the realm of the creation's understanding.

[dxcxdzv]

Even though you guys know my position on this kind of subject I'm skeptical regarding the idea of the existence of "bad/evil" things being able to undermine the concept of an "all powerful-like" God.

[Flapjack]

Based on the creation's idea of what all-kind implies. Not the God, which, isn't within the realm of the creation's understanding.
So you're saying I can't understand how killing babies is kind?
Even though you guys know my position on this kind of subject I'm skeptical regarding the idea of the existence of "bad/evil" things being able to undermine the concept of an "all powerful-like" God.
If something is all kind and all powerful then there would be no evil in the world, that's how I see it at least :)

[dxcxdzv]

If something is all kind and all powerful then there would be no evil in the world, that's how I see it at least :)
Perhaps, but one may think that an all powerful God/Entity would understand the necessity of a behavioral plurality in order to build a viable world.
This does not mean things like a Gamma burst are fair though.

[Bleid]

So you're saying I can't understand how killing babies is kind?

Not necessarily kind - but not necessarily evil or malevolent, either.

Consider if we were all kept alive as babies, strapped to chairs, alive for all eternity, but we were positioned to stare at an empty white wall for all of those years in complete silence. But, at least we're safe from being harmed, right?

Yes, the babies aren't being killed, but they're certainly not having a life worth living in this case.

[Flapjack]

Not necessarily kind - but not necessarily evil or malevolent, either.

Consider if we were all kept alive as babies, strapped to chairs, alive for all eternity, but we were positioned to stare at an empty white wall for all of those years in complete silence. But, at least we're safe from being harmed, right?

Yes, the babies aren't being killed, but they're certainly not having a life worth living in this case.
So you accept God is not all kind? A God that makes a world with natural disasters and cancer is evil. Stephen Fry sums it up pretty well.
2-d4otHE-YI

[Bleid]

So you accept God is not all kind?
Not at all.

A God that makes a world with natural disasters and cancer is evil. Stephen Fry sums it up pretty well.
2-d4otHE-YI

And I would ask him the same questions I've asked you. The video consists of rhetoric. Neither of you, however, are demonstrating any justification for why the world being the way it is would indicate a God that is not maximally great. All that has been brought up is your personal opinions on what is evil.

And if we're going by personal opinion, I would not think a God evil if it were to exist, and the world is just how it is today.

So, you'll need something more than a confident personal testimony for justification.

[Flapjack]

Not at all.



And I would ask him the same questions I've asked you. The video consists of rhetoric. Neither of you, however, are demonstrating any justification for why the world being the way it is would indicate a God that is not maximally great. All that has been brought up is your personal opinions on what is evil.

And if we're going by personal opinion, I would not think a God evil if it were to exist, and the world is just how it is today.

So, you'll need something more than a confident personal testimony for justification.
You're missing the point, why would he create a world with cancer and natural disasters?

[Bleid]

You're missing the point, why would he create a world with cancer and natural disasters?

Why wouldn't he create a world with cancer and natural disasters? Again, you're assuming you have any knowledge of the intentions, desires, thoughts, or interests of a God. For all we know, this may very well have been the most benevolent world that still manages to be worth living in. That's another subject we have no knowledge of, not being universal architects ourselves.

Can you provide me evidence of your experience in a separate world without cancer and natural disasters, and demonstrate that it would be necessarily better for all - including all side effects that occur due to these not being present?

[Flapjack]

Can you provide me evidence of your experience in a separate world without cancer and natural disasters, and demonstrate that it would be necessarily better for all - including all side effects that occur due to these not being present?
Surely an all powerful God could create it? I don't think you get what all powerful means.

[Bleid]

Surely an all powerful God could create it? I don't think you get what all powerful means.

It could create it, but it would be different from what is currently here. Is that the desire of the all-powerful being? Apparently not, since here we are - if it were to exist.

So again, where's the justification for the other example of how the universe could exist?

[Flapjack]

It could create it, but it would be different from what is currently here.
That's the point.
Is that the desire of the all-powerful being? Apparently not, since here we are - if it were to exist.


So again, where's the justification for the other example of how the universe could exist?[/QUOTE]
How do you mean? Are you asking how the universe could exist without God? Or without God being both all powerful and all kind?

[Bleid]

That's the point.

That isn't the point. That's simply stating that a world would be different from how it is if cancer and natural disasters did not exist. Not that a God would be different from how it is if cancer and natural disasters did not exist.

How do you mean? Are you asking how the universe could exist without God? Or without God being both all powerful and all kind?

I mean, if there is a possibility that the universe could exist without cancer and natural disasters if there was a maximally great God, a justification would need to be provided. However, given that this is the only example of a universe that exists, and nothing currently precludes the possibility of a maximally great God, that would seem to not be possible.

[Flapjack]

I mean, if there is a possibility that the universe could exist without cancer and natural disasters if there was a maximally great God, a justification would need to be provided. However, given that this is the only example of a universe that exists, and nothing currently precludes the possibility of a maximally great God, that would seem to not be possible.
Yes of course it is!! What benefit does Cancer give humanity? If you say random mutations and evolution then that suggests evolution created us and not a skygod. An all powerful god could create whatever universe he wanted.

[Bleid]

Yes of course it is!! What benefit does Cancer give humanity? If you say random mutations and evolution then that suggests evolution created us and not a skygod.

If I say random mutations and evolution, there's also nothing precluding God from creating the process of evolution in its creations, so God would have still created us by hypothetical syllogism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_syllogism).

An all powerful god could create whatever universe he wanted.

Precisely. Such a God could even create a universe where it is maximally great, but its creations do not think that it is, wouldn't you say?

[Flapjack]

Precisely. Such a God could even create a universe where it is maximally great, but its creations do not think that it is, wouldn't you say?
But this universe is not maximally great...

Also the fact it taken 7 days to create the world shows to me at least that the Christian God is not all powerful.

[Bleid]

But this universe is not maximally great...

Also the fact it taken 7 days to create the world shows to me at least that the Christian God is not all powerful.

No one spoke of a universe that is or is not maximally great. I was referring to a God being maximally great.

Specifically, observe my clarification below:

An all powerful god could create whatever universe he wanted.

Precisely. Such a God could even create a universe where it (The God) is maximally great, but its creations do not think that it (The God) is, wouldn't you say?

[Uniquemind]

Let me interject and say this:

The premise of flapjack's point is that this world's terrors and experiences have such gravity of importance to him, that it becomes unfathomable to hypothetically believe that perhaps an event POST-death (after death) negates or explains why life experiences are forced into the dichotomy of black/white, good/bad.


Let me be a but of a mind bender here and say: what if none of these things are inherently evil in of themselves?


I asked these questions to myself when I formed my opinion on questions such as these.

Humans have both the power and intellect collectively to fix their problems but we can choose both to continue on or to end.



Also let me say the bible itself does not say it is anti-evolution. That came from a specific man made interpretation that then got indoctrinated into most pastors and catholic fathers among the lexicon of most sermons.

Religious people and communities are not by default understanding the bible correctly as it's supposed to be understood, and taught. It is very possible errors in human understanding of scripture still exist, or society has made new errors.


Humanity has a poor record of understanding faiths, first it was Judaism, then Christianity because apparently clumps of Jewish factions didn't understand correctly hence why Jesus had enemies within old world Judaism, and then we had Christianity, and then the Islamic faith says Christians got it wrong.

[Flapjack]

Let me interject and say this:

The premise of flapjack's point is that this world's terrors and experiences have such gravity of importance to him, that it becomes unfathomable to hypothetically believe that perhaps an event POST-death (after death) negates or explains why life experiences are forced into the dichotomy of black/white, good/bad.


Let me be a but of a mind bender here and say: what if none of these things are inherently evil in of themselves?


I asked these questions to myself when I formed my opinion on questions such as these.

Humans have both the power and intellect collectively to fix their problems but we can choose both to continue on or to end.



Also let me say the bible itself does not say it is anti-evolution. That came from a specific man made interpretation that then got indoctrinated into most pastors and catholic fathers among the lexicon of most sermons.

Religious people and communities are not by default understanding the bible correctly as it's supposed to be understood, and taught. It is very possible errors in human understanding of scripture still exist, or society has made new errors.


Humanity has a poor record of understanding faiths, first it was Judaism, then Christianity because apparently clumps of Jewish factions didn't understand correctly hence why Jesus had enemies within old world Judaism, and then we had Christianity, and then the Islamic faith says Christians got it wrong.
Pretty much buddy!! :')

[PlasmaHam]

Also let me say the bible itself does not say it is anti-evolution. That came from a specific man made interpretation that then got indoctrinated into most pastors and catholic fathers among the lexicon of most sermons.


Um, I don't get your reasoning here. Would you please explain?

[Flapjack]

Originally Posted by Bleid http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/images/styles/fblue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3416125#post3416125)
Precisely. Such a God could even create a universe where it (The God) is maximally great, but its creations do not think that it (The God) is, wouldn't you say?

So God could create himself to be maximally great?

[Adventure boy]

Basically this. You correctly mentioned that between 1 degree and 2 degrees, for instance, there are infinite angles, but you didn't explain why God isn't able to see in all those infinite angles.


Why is it his fault? I can't never understand this argument, honestly, when something bad happens (a natural disaster, etc...), atheists be like "Why didn't God prevent it?", when something good happens (a medical "miracle") and people say it was God that helped the doctors, atheists be like "Pff, it wasn't God, it was the doctors skill that did it!"


Why does he need to? He hasn't plainly confirmed his existence yet some people believe him. How do you explain that?



Yasss preach :))) are you Christian?

[Bleid]

So God could create himself to be maximally great?

Based on what we've discussed, a maximally great God could create a universe in which its creations do not believe the God to be maximally great, even if the God is maximally great.

Hence, God can be maximally great.

[Living For Love]

Yasss preach :))) are you Christian?
Yes :)

[Flapjack]

Based on what we've discussed, a maximally great God could create a universe in which its creations do not believe the God to be maximally great, even if the God is maximally great.

Hence, God can be maximally great.
Yessss he could do that? He could also get rid of cancer and depression and aids and natural disasters?

For a God that wants us spending our whole lives thanking him, I doubt he is the type to do such a selfless thing.

[Bleid]

Yessss he could do that?

Precisely!

He could also get rid of cancer and depression and aids and natural disasters?

I'm sure he could get rid of those four as well. However, I was only interested in one conclusion this time, being an affirmative answer to the title of this thread, which, we've just secured.

For a God that wants us spending our whole lives thanking him, I doubt he is the type to do such a selfless thing.

That trait is not always present in a concept of God. It would be quite the straw man to apply that trait universally.

[Adventure boy]

Yes :)



Ohh cool!!!! Same with me bro

[Uniquemind]

Um, I don't get your reasoning here. Would you please explain?

What do you not follow? It's pretty self explanatory if you understand why creationists who are religious, think Earth is 6000+ years old approx, and atheist and scientists who have studied geology are like..."no, it's not".

[Jontxu]

But there is no way for that hypothetical god to have been created inthe first place.

[Flapjack]

But there is no way for that hypothetical god to have been created inthe first place.
The same argument can be applied to the universe :P

[PlasmaHam]

The same argument can be applied to the universe :P

The thing is, God is not bound by the laws of nature, the universe is. You can't explain God because of science because he is outside of science, he created science. There is a little joke among Christian's, in that if somebody could understand God, they would become God. Personally, it is much easier for me to accept that an omnipotent being created everything using power beyond anything that humans can understand, than the universe just coming in to being by pure chance and breaking science, yet people claim the latter is scientific.

[PlasmaHam]

What do you not follow? It's pretty self explanatory if you understand why creationists who are religious, think Earth is 6000+ years old approx, and atheist and scientists who have studied geology are like..."no, it's not".

You aren't following me. How is the Bible not anti-evolution?

(Sorry double post)

[Vlerchan]

The thing is, God is not bound by the laws of nature, the universe is.
No, the phenomena contained in the universe are subject to the laws of nature. The universe itself, isn't.

[...] than the universe just coming in to being by pure change and breaking science, yet people claim the latter is more scientific.
In the time before the universe, there was no science, no rules, to stop the universe from emerging spontaneously.

[Flapjack]

The thing is, God is not bound by the laws of nature, the universe is. You can't explain God because of science because he is outside of science, he created science.
Science is not only stuff like the induced fit hypothesis and the photoelectric effect, it is an attempt to understand stuff, why it happens and how we could use that stuff. If God could be proved real by the scientific method then he would become science. Of course the only evidence for him is a book that contradicts itself so I doubt God will be made science any time soon.

[lliam]

So, this means that God cannot see from every conceivable angle at the same time, which means that he cannot do every conceivable thing.


You assume that God sees how we see stuff or such.

Must God ever be able to see if it (or he) already knows everything anyway?



And as for the maximally great, God may as well physically be as large like a grain of dust. Size doesn't count if you are allmighty or such.

[Uniquemind]

You assume that God sees how we see stuff or such.

Must God ever be able to see if it (or he) already knows everything anyway?



And as for the maximally great, God may as well physically be as large like a grain of dust. Size doesn't count if you are allmighty or such.

That and given the fact we're postulating the claim that he is all omnipresent, omnipotent, and all-knowing, as simultaneous qualities, and we've been discussing them linearly one at a time, which is contrary to what the claim is in the first place.


You aren't following me. How is the Bible not anti-evolution?

(Sorry double post)

Let me ask you why you think it is then?

[sqishy]

I decided to return to this thread by means of a general sweep of what I didn't already interact with.

- - - - - - - -

By nature, spiritual creatures have free will.

Would this include humans, angles, demons and so on?



Also the conversation so far has looked at God and his relationship to mankind in a one-to-one ratio, without considering simultaneous interference of other created beings who also influence mankind's evolution within the domain of free will.

I'm totally for looking at it in a less anthropocentric way, yes. Something different for a change.


All of you ever realised that it's always the same questions and answers back and forth in every thread about religion?
And in any other religious debate anywhere else? Ever wondered why?

Neither party will ever change its opinion so sometimes I just feel talking about the same things over and over without any new results is kinda gettin old.

You believe in an almighty God who created the whole universe fine...you believe this whole God thing is bullshit fine,too.
Neither side will ever be able to have proofs or persuade the otherside...so I just don't see where these discussions will ever lead too.

If anyone could enlighten me on that it would be way more important to me than this whole talk I just read through.

Discussing something less 'close to home' for each side here, like what Uniquemind said in the above quote, might bring in some hope here. :P



Natural disasters are sad from our point of view, but their also our fault too.

From where societies feel it should be geographically smart to build homes on floodplains...

A lot of our misery is our own fault, not God's.

While many 'natural disasters' are avoidable by how much human pain and death they cause, many are not. I don't know if you see suffering as something universally avoidable if humans get their act together in some maximally virtuous way, but I don't go with that view at all.



Why don't children have the right to believe in any God and "have" a religion? What do you think of parents who bring their kids with them to churches/mosques/synagogues/temples, etc...?


I'm of the inclination that children have a right to learn of at least some of the diversity of religion there is in the human world, rather than be brought into one of them directly. The immense innocence of childhood has with it the great ability to learn, but also the great ability to be framed within one religious mindset and have a much more influenced subjective view on the diversity of the rest. For the former, not the latter.


Science!

Do you mean the scientific method?


It is using the mind to gain insight about God instead of revelation (stuff like prophecy). So pretty much you use your capability to reason and think to prove God's existence.

So you're more the deist than the theist, correct?


But there is no way to test or proved his existence? The other guy said God could not do that stuff because it is outside of natural reason.

Despite my perspective on the usually talked-about God, you cannot prove the absence of its existence just because there is arguably a lack of evidence for its existence.


He's still all powerful as he doesn't want to automatically take control of your life and force you to worship him, he wants instead people to take that decision by themselves. This fact doesn't go against the fact that he's also all powerful.

Have you read the thread on technetheism?


Should a parent fix every problem for a kid, or should the kid learn to fix his own problems?

I can't see this as any sufficient reasoning for why there are justifiably forms of life which subject children to a very painful upbringing, to this omnibenevolent God you speak of.

- - - - - - - -

This is a mini detour that I nevertheless want to engage with.


You have proof of the big bang! I would certainly like to see that! Especially since it breaks all the laws of the universe!

It doesn't break any physical 'laws' if these laws were only formulated to describe events that fundamentally presuppose a non-infinitely-curved dimensional background. Instead, it is simply out of their frame of description.
(Just wanted to comment on that.)



I believe in erosion, I have a creek in my backyard. We had a big rainfall a few weeks back that almost completely destroyed the bank. I can observe erosion, it is a fact.


I'll only believe in calculus when an infinitesimal knocks on my front door.


If evolution was correct, we should see huge amount of variation in the animal kingdom, instead of an orderly system.

But we do see a huge amount of variation in the animal kingdom...
Predictions are that there are 2-50 million animal species known, and species have variations within them.

An orderly system by what standards of orderliness?


The law of entropy goes against evolution.

No no no!!!!

Entropy is not a law, it is an idea that laws are made with.

Biochemical forms are noteworthy that they export high entropy away from them to keep a low entropy state within them. The general amount of entropy always increases; it just so happens that local entropy levels decrease. Universal entropy necessarily increases, but parts of it do not necessarily do the same. Life doesn't cheat any of the 'three laws of thermodynamics' at all.

With that said, I don't get this at all:


Even scientists admit the basic building block of organic molecules require perfect conditions to create and they have no idea how it would have evolved beyond such.


I haven't heard of scientists admitting these things. 'Perfect conditions' is not needed at all, only a relatively very stable and/or fortuitous environment that allows some chemistry to start doing the entropy exporting thing I spoke of above.

- - - - - - - -


I could easily argue that God gave humans a brain which has the potential to very vast critical thinking and to always chase the truth, or if that person or society (en mass) chose to deny the truth, they would suffer.

This truth here sounds way more like the truth of what sustains the human body's lifespan, than anything else.

The search for greater ways to sustain existence has no necessity to be relevant with searching for what it means to exist.



So in my view God gave humanity a very fair blank slate from which to work with, and it's humanity's fault that they invented false religions before acknowledging Christianity.

We would all be doing better if assumptions on the 'true religion' were left before entry into this ROTW thread.



There is basically no measure to test God.

If we are to say this, then there is no measure to test for God as wall as against God, yes.



The geological time scale and theory of how the Earth formed, is the reverse of the events described in Genesis.

Do you mean this literally, as in the order of events in both views?



He's God of all things, both to create and destroy. It's by default offensive to accept there is a hierarchy of power that has the rightful place to decide such things over you. That's ultimately what is fueling this debate.

Perceptions of hierarchy fuel most of the ROTW train. :P



Do you have a source for this?

Do you have a source against this?

I am personally curious to see what the historic human cancer rates are; I will look into it.



As a living being death is the state you surely don't want to get into.

A suicidal living being is a major example against this. I'm for there being a quality of most living beings known that give reason for why death is avoided, but the existence of living being does not show any necessity that that being also wants to avoid its death.


What does that mean? You didn't read my post because I actually explained how cancer happens, not just causes. If you knew what I wrote you wouldn't say that crap. Lifestyles can increase the risks of cancers but random mutations will always happen and have always happened.

Nevertheless, Porpoise has a point that the prevalence of carcinogens around us has increased a lot recently. They will never be the sole factor in the formation of cancer, but they can very well be a major growing contributor to the rates of cancer.


Why would a world without tectonic plates be bad?

One astrophysical theory says that the evolution of Venus' surface to present conditions was helped by insufficient tectonic activity to take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
(Just a side note!)


That and given the fact we're postulating the claim that he is all omnipresent, omnipotent, and all-knowing, as simultaneous qualities, and we've been discussing them linearly one at a time, which is contrary to what the claim is in the first place.


Technetheism might be relevant here.

- - - - - - - -

mattsmith48 Flapjack Uniquemind The Special One

Noooo [God] not creating a planet where there are natural disasters that kill people would be best.

I'd be interested to know what your feelings are on an Earth where all the disasters you speak of that God should prevent, were hypothetically never actually a thing. Would this be the same as Utopia for you, or would some events like feeling pain still be around?


Bleid Living For Love Adventure boy PlasmaHam Arkansasguy Porpoise101 Ghaem

A lot of this thread has focused on the perceived omnibenevolent qualities of this God that we're shared in discussing.

Benevolence doesn't mean much to me by virtue of experiencing the world through my life, if it does not make itself apparent within it.

How can a God be benevolent to me if I have personally suffered a great trauma without any reason found through morality/karma/etc?

I'm taking benevolence here by that which creates and/or sustains a pleasant experience for a sentient being. Let's abstract it a little but keep it within the frame of meaningful existence through only conscious experience; it is meaningful if it exists for me.

[Porpoise101]

Benevolence doesn't mean much to me by virtue of experiencing the world through my life, if it does not make itself apparent within it.

How can a God be benevolent to me if I have personally suffered a great trauma without any reason found through morality/karma/etc?

I'm taking benevolence here by that which creates and/or sustains a pleasant experience for a sentient being. Let's abstract it a little but keep it within the frame of meaningful existence through only conscious experience; it is meaningful if it exists for me.
What kind of trauma are you talking about, can you give an example.

[sqishy]

What kind of trauma are you talking about, can you give an example.

Being involved in a car crash with the car careening through your garden at you, losing your legs, and then some months later being the victim of a shooting, leaving you with major nerve damage.

I could construct something else if you would like, like growing up in an abusive family, or being kidnapped.

[Porpoise101]

Being involved in a car crash with the car careening through your garden at you, losing your legs, and then some months later being the victim of a shooting, leaving you with major nerve damage.

I could construct something else if you would like, like growing up in an abusive family, or being kidnapped.
Hmm. The car crash is the only one truly representative of a random accident. The others are results of the evil of others. If mankind did not have the ability to be and demonstrate evil, then I don't know that we would really learn to avoid it. But let's get to the car crash, which is to me more interesting. By choosing to accept the society that you live in, you also accept the risks that the society takes. This hypothetical society allows for the usage of cars. The society understands that cars are a valuable tool, but they also understand the potential causes in human life. As a part of this society, you accepted this responsibility. This is why I tend to believe that man made freak accidents and car crashes are the fault of the society as a whole, especially in more free societies.

To me God presents opportunities for risk and safety. It is up to man to choose or reject them as it chooses.

[dxcxdzv]

A suicidal living being is a major example against this. I'm for there being a quality of most living beings known that give reason for why death is avoided, but the existence of living being does not show any necessity that that being also wants to avoid its death.
I have argued during long lonnnng times back in the day on this precise issue.
To summarize I don't consider a suicidal behavior as the representation of a living being willing to die in the way of excluding all necessity to live.

Your body (this does include the brain as well) is conceived to live and so will be your fundamental behavior and the wish to die can't go 100% against this.
Especially when you start to think about the reasons that lead an individual to kill himself or simply wanting to.

[sqishy]

Hmm. The car crash is the only one truly representative of a random accident. The others are results of the evil of others. If mankind did not have the ability to be and demonstrate evil, then I don't know that we would really learn to avoid it.

I'm keeping it to the experiences of one person, which humanity is based off. I'm not involving the potential for everyone to be hurtful to other people, I am talking about the potential for anyone to be hurt in any event which has no reasonable moral or karmic pattern to it whatsoever.

I can bring up the events of children being exposed to guinea worms, if you have heard of them.


But let's get to the car crash, which is to me more interesting. By choosing to accept the society that you live in, you also accept the risks that the society takes. This hypothetical society allows for the usage of cars. The society understands that cars are a valuable tool, but they also understand the potential causes in human life. As a part of this society, you accepted this responsibility. This is why I tend to believe that man made freak accidents and car crashes are the fault of the society as a whole, especially in more free societies.

To me God presents opportunities for risk and safety. It is up to man to choose or reject them as it chooses.

That you choose to integrate with a society or not is irrelevant - a homeless anarchist could be the car crash victim.

Young children are involved in the risk of technology that they never asked to be a part of, too.


I have argued during long lonnnng times back in the day on this precise issue.
To summarize I don't consider a suicidal behavior as the representation of a living being willing to die in the way of excluding all necessity to live.

Your body (this does include the brain as well) is conceived to live and so will be your fundamental behavior and the wish to die can't go 100% against this.
Especially when you start to think about the reasons that lead an individual to kill himself or simply wanting to.

I'll keep within the frame of known biology as examples of living beings here. I'm also saying that I don't see how living beings necessarily want to live, from observations of only the majority of Earth biology.

Do you mean living being in a strictly biological sense, or in a psychological sense?

There are accounts of unicellular life which kills itself, so that apparently the greater colony 'social' system benefits.

[dxcxdzv]

I'll keep within the frame of known biology as examples of living beings here. I'm also saying that I don't see how living beings necessarily want to live, from observations of only the majority of Earth biology.
I'd narrow "living beings" to humans here for the sake of simplicity, we can't rationally assume that one behavior is normal or abnormal regarding "Nature".


Do you mean living being in a strictly biological sense, or in a psychological sense?
I think really has to be linked, psychological or biological what is produced by our brain is produced by out cells.
From a psychological point of view, I am no expert but I difficultly consider one individual wanting to kill themselves in an absolute way, by that I mean in a way that the will to live is totally annihilated and I consider as well live as the most logical solution starting from an individualist point of view.
From a biological point of view I even more difficultly see an individual having no biological response to death, and by that I mean defensive, wether it is a physical reflex or simply fear (you may say that fear does not constitute a will to live in itself, perhaps, but I think the total will to die and thus biologically does imply a real insensibility to this kind of things).
You have a will to live, regardless of the form it may take, your body will react (a body in a normal healthy state) actively against a threat that could put it in a unsafe position. I would be extremely surprised to find that that there is a single human body that is not designed to fundamentally live.
This does also look obvious that as one is brought to life their body will be made to live.



There are accounts of unicellular life which kills itself, so that apparently the greater colony 'social' system benefits.
In addition to what I previously said I personally find this example quite reductionist.

[sqishy]

I'd narrow "living beings" to humans here for the sake of simplicity, we can't rationally assume that one behavior is normal or abnormal regarding "Nature".

Alright.



I think really has to be linked, psychological or biological what is produced by our brain is produced by out cells.

Good point, I worded it wrong; I should have said biological / experiential in consciousness or similar.



From a psychological point of view, I am no expert but I difficultly consider one individual wanting to kill themselves in an absolute way, by that I mean in a way that the will to live is totally annihilated and I consider as well live as the most logical solution starting from an individualist point of view.

From interaction with certain people, I can understand fuzzily perspective in this. The logical solution manifest to them was not to live.



From a biological point of view I even more difficultly see an individual having no biological response to death, and by that I mean defensive, wether it is a physical reflex or simply fear (you may say that fear does not constitute a will to live in itself, perhaps, but I think the total will to die and thus biologically does imply a real insensibility to this kind of things).

This presumes that living beings can only exist within evolutionary processes that we know of.

Even within the evolutionary view, it can be alternately seen that we are not programmed to actively avoid death for any positive 'reason'. All genetic programming to not avoid death tended to lead to death, and so stopped being around for self-evident reasons. The programs for avoiding death happenstance remain. The 'reasoning' is coming out of the genes, rather than vice versa. (I promise I am not intending to be patronising if it is coming across that way, as a precautionary disclaimer with this.)



You have a will to live, regardless of the form it may take, your body will react (a body in a normal healthy state) actively against a threat that could put it in a unsafe position. I would be extremely surprised to find that that there is a single human body that is not designed to fundamentally live.
This does also look obvious that as one is brought to life their body will be made to live.

Happenstance programmed to live, yes.



In addition to what I previously said I personally find this example quite reductionist.

Alright then.

[Porpoise101]

I'm keeping it to the experiences of one person, which humanity is based off. I'm not involving the potential for everyone to be hurtful to other people, I am talking about the potential for anyone to be hurt in any event which has no reasonable moral or karmic pattern to it whatsoever.

To me there are only "moral" events (events caused by and relating to man) and "natural" events. The natural events are amoral and are apart of the greater system of the universe. The moral events result from man and man's systems (like governments, rules, individual beliefs, etc). I really don't see how there is something that does not fall into these categories. There doesn't need to be any pattern to anything either, the world is quite random and chaotic.

I can bring up the events of children being exposed to guinea worms, if you have heard of them.

You can't say this is not purposeless, the guinea worms are filling their natural function to predate upon people. The worms aren't that successful at actually killing people nowadays as we have learned to use our capabilities to fight back.

That you choose to integrate with a society or not is irrelevant - a homeless anarchist could be the car crash victim.

If there were enough homeless anarchists, they would have decided for themselves to integrate or not. Since they are an extreme minority, they have to abide by the society and accept the burdens that get placed upon them as a result.

Young children are involved in the risk of technology that they never asked to be a part of, too.
It may be impractical, but I am all for full disclosure of things, even to children. Everyone should at least know their risks they are taking.

[Living For Love]

Have you read the thread on technetheism?
No, I haven't.

How can a God be benevolent to me if I have personally suffered a great trauma without any reason found through morality/karma/etc?
Once again, people using the old argument "if God is so good/powerful/kind/etc, why do I suffer so much?" Maybe if people who followed God didn't have any kind of trouble or problems in their life, everyone would believe in him, right? But that's not how it works. He wants you to accept his blessings but he also wants to test your faith and your determination. We take the good and the bad, we accept the good and the bad, and we want to take the good and the bad too. We all go through bad stuff in our lives, being a Christian doesn't makes us immune to that, but as Christians, we can rest assured that we have someone by our side to help us. Christians don't mind going through hardships, instead, they are thankful to God for going through those problems, because we know he loves us and will rewards us in the end.

[dxcxdzv]

From interaction with certain people, I can understand fuzzily perspective in this. The logical solution manifest to them was not to live.
Perhaps, but does this mean there is no will to live at all, or, as we're talking psychology here, no idea to continue to live at all?


This presumes that living beings can only exist within evolutionary processes that we know of.
As far as I know this is the case for humans, right?


Even within the evolutionary view, it can be alternately seen that we are not programmed to actively avoid death for any positive 'reason'. All genetic programming to not avoid death tended to lead to death, and so stopped being around for self-evident reasons. The programs for avoiding death happenstance remain. The 'reasoning' is coming out of the genes, rather than vice versa. (I promise I am not intending to be patronising if it is coming across that way, as a precautionary disclaimer with this.)
Programmed to avoid death at all costs I don't know, if it were the case it would be validly tricky to wonder why we die in the first place.
I'm more pointing out the manifestation of a will to live, regardless of its degree of manifestation.

[jamie_n5]

Interesting and provocative thoughts. I have always believed God is maximally great. He has the power and ability to do anything. But he gave us free will to do as we please on earth and do to the earth and it's beings as we wish. So thus we can create or destroy the things around us. Do good or evil. Believe or disbelieve as it were. These are my feelings.

[sqishy]

To me there are only "moral" events (events caused by and relating to man) and "natural" events. The natural events are amoral and are apart of the greater system of the universe. The moral events result from man and man's systems (like governments, rules, individual beliefs, etc). I really don't see how there is something that does not fall into these categories. There doesn't need to be any pattern to anything either, the world is quite random and chaotic.

I'm focusing on these amoral events then.



You can't say this is not purposeless, the guinea worms are filling their natural function to predate upon people. The worms aren't that successful at actually killing people nowadays as we have learned to use our capabilities to fight back.

I'm not saying it is without purpose, I am saying it is without sense if God is omnibenevolent to us, God cannot be that with this going on.



If there were enough homeless anarchists, they would have decided for themselves to integrate or not. Since they are an extreme minority, they have to abide by the society and accept the burdens that get placed upon them as a result.

They theoretically can fully not integrate, and still suffer from car crashes, or plane crashes. That is my point.

If you want a practical example, there are the Amazonian natives who suddenly suffered with the influx of foreign societies, along with their technology. The native North Americans are another example.



It may be impractical, but I am all for full disclosure of things, even to children. Everyone should at least know their risks they are taking.

The disclosure is only justified in context of consent with a situation, where the person is able to consent. My point holds here; many humans are suffering for which they cannot / do not know how to deal with it in such a way that they benefit from it, long-term included.

It does not make sense for an omnibenevolent God to 'present these challenges' if the person has no chance to feel God's benevolence sufficiently at any point. For that person, God's benevolence cannot be seen, if the person's life does not experience any of it.


No, I haven't.

It may be relevant.



Once again, people using the old argument "if God is so good/powerful/kind/etc, why do I suffer so much?"

Note that I am taking this different to what you may think. I'm talking about God's omnibenevolence in context of a human's life and its experiences; if it does not manifest for the human, then God has not been omnibenevolent to that human (and I argue that most humans are in this situation).



Maybe if people who followed God didn't have any kind of trouble or problems in their life, everyone would believe in him, right? But that's not how it works. He wants you to accept his blessings but he also wants to test your faith and your determination. We take the good and the bad, we accept the good and the bad, and we want to take the good and the bad too. We all go through bad stuff in our lives, being a Christian doesn't makes us immune to that, but as Christians, we can rest assured that we have someone by our side to help us. Christians don't mind going through hardships, instead, they are thankful to God for going through those problems, because we know he loves us and will rewards us in the end.

Before we continue, how do you define benevolence / kindness / good will, and are they all linked or separate?

Do you see God to want us humans to live a good life, in terms of quality and quantity?


You talk about God's benevolence in how it presents us the opportunity to better ourselves with self-actualisation through the many challenges of suffering that manifest to us in life, each of us having our unique set of challenges.

As I said to Porpoise above, it's all well and good if the challenges are challenges, by the challenged person having opportunity/ability to experience and 'rise above' it by the lessons learned and such.

These experiences of suffering cannot be challenges if the person has no opportunity to better themselves through self-actualisation and learning for even ultimately a long-term positive life experience. It's no challenge if you're metaphorically just shooting down the person and giving them scant chance for their life, such as with children suffering very painful and/or life-threatening diseases, or being involved in a sudden plane crash. How exactly am I supposed to see the opportunity this omnibenevolent God has given to me to live, if I personally cannot find it anywhere?

It's also fuel for scepticism of this God's omnibenevolence, if our trust in it is supposed to be tested. Drawing analogy, it would be like a mother stranding the child in unpleasant situations to see how far the child's love and trust for her continues.

Also, where is this God helping me? The only help I see is through optimistic ideas within the minority of people's minds who see a perspective of omnibenevolence, despite this apparent prevalent physical field of suffering, a lot of it insurmountable.

At the very best for me (suspending some issues I see here still), this God is partly benevolent (benevolent for some people), not at all maximally benevolent.

(I mean no direct or specific offence, by the way. I am only intending to drive this point further.)


Perhaps, but does this mean there is no will to live at all, or, as we're talking psychology here, no idea to continue to live at all?

It doesn't mean that there is absolute absence of will to live, no; agreed.
Similarly however, it doesn't mean that there is absolute will to live.

I prefer to see it that the will to live is not a central concept for someone. Rather, it is an idea that is learned after observing that practically all the desires/intentions one has, are coincidental with one continuing to live. The will to live in this view is at most subconscious, if we are to see it as a permanent feature in one's existence.



As far as I know this is the case for humans, right?

It is yes. Was your point on living beings only about humans?



Programmed to avoid death at all costs I don't know, if it were the case it would be validly tricky to wonder why we die in the first place.
I'm more pointing out the manifestation of a will to live, regardless of its degree of manifestation.

I meant that the evolutionary contributor to death avoidance is 'negative', in that it comes out of the absence of evolutionary manifestations that happen to not lead to death; predominantly only the manifestations that appear to avoid death remain. I can link that to the psychological aspect above.

Good point with our mortality though too; death has a role in this faster process of genetic evolution, but I still see it that death is only a 'negative' entity in this process; it's the genes within organisms/species that don't die as easily that happenstance tend to remain.


My overall point is that living beings do not necessarily actively avoid death, it's not a necessary feature of a living being.

[Living For Love]

Note that I am taking this different to what you may think. I'm talking about God's omnibenevolence in context of a human's life and its experiences; if it does not manifest for the human, then God has not been omnibenevolent to that human (and I argue that most humans are in this situation).
Why do you think Christians have to live a perfect life free of any problems or trouble? Just because we believe in God doesn't mean we're immune to that. God is love and benevolence, yes, but he's also justice, and he may want to test a certain person's faith.

Before we continue, how do you define benevolence / kindness / good will, and are they all linked or separate?
I don't see how that's relevant, but anyway:

benevolence
bɪˈnɛv(ə)l(ə)ns,bɪˈnɛvəl(ə)ns,bɪˈnɛvələns
noun
the quality of being well meaning; kindness.

kindness
ˈkʌɪn(d)nəs/
noun
the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate.

goodwill
ɡʊdˈwɪl/
noun
friendly, helpful, or cooperative feelings or attitude.

Do you see God to want us humans to live a good life, in terms of quality and quantity?
Yes, absolutely.

You talk about God's benevolence in how it presents us the opportunity to better ourselves with self-actualisation through the many challenges of suffering that manifest to us in life, each of us having our unique set of challenges.

As I said to Porpoise above, it's all well and good if the challenges are challenges, by the challenged person having opportunity/ability to experience and 'rise above' it by the lessons learned and such.

These experiences of suffering cannot be challenges if the person has no opportunity to better themselves through self-actualisation and learning for even ultimately a long-term positive life experience. It's no challenge if you're metaphorically just shooting down the person and giving them scant chance for their life, such as with children suffering very painful and/or life-threatening diseases, or being involved in a sudden plane crash. How exactly am I supposed to see the opportunity this omnibenevolent God has given to me to live, if I personally cannot find it anywhere?
Children can hardly be considered a subject for God to test their faith, since they're exactly that, children, and Heaven already belongs to them. If anything, he's actually testing the parents' faith.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not up to us to seek that opportunity for "self-actualisation", we just have to trust that God will help us overcome whatever trouble we find in our lives. Rest assured that he doesn't give anyone any challenge that he knows that person is not able to complete. He knows our strengths and limitations better than anyone, even ourselves, and he knows that after being able to overcome our troubles, we will have a much stronger faith on him, and desire to be closer to him. That's his main objective, to pull us closer, to make sure we don't give up on following him and serving him.

Personally, I've been through a lot of crap during my life, and believe me, sometimes I would feel like God had abandoned me and that there was no point in carrying on whatsoever. But then he would give me a sign, something good that would eventually happen in the middle of all that hell I was living, a glimmer of hope that he knew was enough for me to stand up and keep fighting. And he's been loyal to me ever since, even when I wasn't as loyal to him as I should've been and as he would have desired. i know he does care about me, and I'd happily welcome any challenge he would want to bring to my life as I've been doing so far. My life is what I have of most valuable, so I'm willing to give it to him.

It's also fuel for scepticism of this God's omnibenevolence, if our trust in it is supposed to be tested. Drawing analogy, it would be like a mother stranding the child in unpleasant situations to see how far the child's love and trust for her continues.
What about all the rewards, all the good things that happen in our lives too? Once again, same ol' arguments: everything bad that happens, or everything good that doesn't happen, it's always God's fault, yet everything good that does happen, or everything bad that does not, well, it was either pure luck or it was just the result of a number of events coincidentally but at the same time extremely well-conceived by the omnipotent logic, the omniscient reason and the everlastingly powerful science...

Also, where is this God helping me? The only help I see is through optimistic ideas within the minority of people's minds who see a perspective of omnibenevolence, despite this apparent prevalent physical field of suffering, a lot of it insurmountable.
Well, believing in him and accepting Christ as your saviour would be a start...

[sqishy]

Why do you think Christians have to live a perfect life free of any problems or trouble? Just because we believe in God doesn't mean we're immune to that. God is love and benevolence, yes, but he's also justice, and he may want to test a certain person's faith.

I never said that or intended to imply it, anywhere.

Your life is fulfilling because you perceive omnibenevolent God to present you with challenges that you develop as a person through, riding the bad and good times.



I don't see how that's relevant, but anyway:

benevolence
bɪˈnɛv(ə)l(ə)ns,bɪˈnɛvəl(ə)ns,bɪˈnɛvələns
noun
the quality of being well meaning; kindness.

kindness
ˈkʌɪn(d)nəs/
noun
the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate.

goodwill
ɡʊdˈwɪl/
noun
friendly, helpful, or cooperative feelings or attitude.

It is relevant so that I know what God's omni-qualities mean by definition for you. Let's stay with just the benevolence then: 'the quality of being well meaning'.



Yes, absolutely.

Yet (as I see it) many people do not live out their lives to death by old age. As one example of many, young adults dying of cancer. This is an example of an event that was not of the fault of the person, or other humans.



Children can hardly be considered a subject for God to test their faith, since they're exactly that, children, and Heaven already belongs to them. If anything, he's actually testing the parents' faith.

Some children are subject to non-human-influenced/caused injury and death nevertheless.



I understand what you're saying, but it's not up to us to seek that opportunity for "self-actualisation", we just have to trust that God will help us overcome whatever trouble we find in our lives.

That may be trustable in many situations, but there is a lot of trouble around that simply cannot be overcome, e.g. cancer, dementia.

So God's help is for increasing our ability/chance to overcome a challenge, alright. There are still so many situations that I cannot see as any fair challenge by God whatsoever though, and it brings up the free will topic with humans.



Rest assured that he doesn't give anyone any challenge that he knows that person is not able to complete.

Really?
Cancer by random genetic mutation unaffected by own lifestyle, fatal lightning strikes, etc.

Any situation like this gives example of why I cannot see God to be omnibenevolent.


He knows our strengths and limitations better than anyone, even ourselves, and he knows that after being able to overcome our troubles, we will have a much stronger faith on him, and desire to be closer to him. That's his main objective, to pull us closer, to make sure we don't give up on following him and serving him.

Personally, I've been through a lot of crap during my life, and believe me, sometimes I would feel like God had abandoned me and that there was no point in carrying on whatsoever. But then he would give me a sign, something good that would eventually happen in the middle of all that hell I was living, a glimmer of hope that he knew was enough for me to stand up and keep fighting. And he's been loyal to me ever since, even when I wasn't as loyal to him as I should've been and as he would have desired. i know he does care about me, and I'd happily welcome any challenge he would want to bring to my life as I've been doing so far. My life is what I have of most valuable, so I'm willing to give it to him.

You have the perspective that sees omnibenevolence in God, I grant that, yet I am highlighting situations where I cannot see how an omnibenevolent God would 'permit' such a situation to occur to a person, where this situation was not caused or influenced by the free will of oneself / other people.

With your view of humans having free will, if it is necessary to have faith in God and trust that 'he' will help us with meeting a challenge set by it, with that help needed, then it means we are sacrificing some of out freedom in dependence on God, in order to get through those challenges. This would be a point on the perceived absolute free will of humans, that at least some followers of God have (I'd argue all, but will just say that).



What about all the rewards, all the good things that happen in our lives too? Once again, same ol' arguments: everything bad that happens, or everything good that doesn't happen, it's always God's fault, yet everything good that does happen, or everything bad that does not, well, it was either pure luck or it was just the result of a number of events coincidentally but at the same time extremely well-conceived by the omnipotent logic, the omniscient reason and the everlastingly powerful science...

I didn't say that everything was God's fault; I am allowing your view that a lot of suffering is of humanity's fault by their free will, but at least a minority of situations of suffering are not due to humanity and so are due to God, so it is at fault there. Some things are God's fault; even if God were to be benevolent, it is not maximally so if some situations of insurmountable suffering are due to it.

I'm not an anti-theist or a follower of scientism, by the way. By no means do I see logic or human reason as a literal replacement to God (though I know many effectively do), so I don't need to make this relevant.



Well, believing in him and accepting Christ as your saviour would be a start...

It would yes, but as I am not gifted with the faith for God and Christ, I am left to do the deist's reasoning to attempt to get there. I don't go with this sort of God anyway (as you can see), which is one reason I set technetheism in motion, though omnibenevolence was not directly involved.

I cannot see that God is omnibenevolent with the reasoning, even if I am to attempt a perspective shift to see it from a faithful POV. The faith is holding general infinity, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence of God together in a way that I cannot make sense of, from multiple angles.

[ThisBougieLife]

What about all the rewards, all the good things that happen in our lives too? Once again, same ol' arguments: everything bad that happens, or everything good that doesn't happen, it's always God's fault, yet everything good that does happen, or everything bad that does not, well, it was either pure luck or it was just the result of a number of events coincidentally but at the same time extremely well-conceived by the omnipotent logic, the omniscient reason and the everlastingly powerful science...


Yet the inverse also occurs frequently: any time something good happens, God gets all the credit ("it's a miracle", "God has blessed our family") yet if something bad happens God gets none of the blame ("it's not God's fault", "suffering is a part of life", "there must be some plan"). It seems to me that neither side can attribute equal "credit" to God when "good" or "bad" things happen. Attribution to God is self-serving.

Sometimes good things happen to good people, sometimes bad things do, sometimes bad people get what they deserve, sometimes bad people are succeeding. Sometimes what you reap is a direct result of what you sow, sometimes you get crapped on for no reason. No matter how you look at it, some of it is going to seem arbitrary. Theists will say it's because God gave us free will and never promised us a perfect life; atheists will say this is evidence of a lack of a benevolent deity. Either way they do not conclusively prove anything.

I just had to comment on this since this is an argument I frequently see made, both from the atheist and theist side. And it seems to me neither side realizes they are simply complements of each other.

[Living For Love]

Yet (as I see it) many people do not live out their lives to death by old age. As one example of many, young adults dying of cancer. This is an example of an event that was not of the fault of the person, or other humans.
Cancer has a lot of environmental and behavioural influences and causes, that's a fact, so it can have a human cause. God has a plan for each of us, but only some choose to accept it. For those who don't, for those who reject him, they are left on their own, and so God can't interfere in their lives to help them.

Some children are subject to non-human-influenced/caused injury and death nevertheless.
Right. Again, why is that God's fault?

That may be trustable in many situations, but there is a lot of trouble around that simply cannot be overcome, e.g. cancer, dementia.

So God's help is for increasing our ability/chance to overcome a challenge, alright. There are still so many situations that I cannot see as any fair challenge by God whatsoever though, and it brings up the free will topic with humans.
Cancer can be overcome, I've witnessed it first-hand. Dementia, on the other hand, cannot, as far as I'm aware, but I wouldn't consider it trouble, I'd just consider it the way our human body works, with its own limitations. True, there are a lot of people with 80, 90 years old who are still perfectly sane, but that can also depend on how that person lived their whole life. I could expand a bit more on this topic, if you want, particularly on how sometimes God allows someone to become demented in order to save them (it's kind of just a theory of mine, though).

Really?
Cancer by random genetic mutation unaffected by own lifestyle, fatal lightning strikes, etc.

Any situation like this gives example of why I cannot see God to be omnibenevolent.
Death is hardly a superable challenge, though.

Also, I know it's kinda late to ask this, but what exactly do you mean by omnibenevolent? You mean God is supposed to make our lives perfect because, well, he's God?

You have the perspective that sees omnibenevolence in God, I grant that, yet I am highlighting situations where I cannot see how an omnibenevolent God would 'permit' such a situation to occur to a person, where this situation was not caused or influenced by the free will of oneself / other people.

With your view of humans having free will, if it is necessary to have faith in God and trust that 'he' will help us with meeting a challenge set by it, with that help needed, then it means we are sacrificing some of out freedom in dependence on God, in order to get through those challenges. This would be a point on the perceived absolute free will of humans, that at least some followers of God have (I'd argue all, but will just say that).
I understand what you're saying but I really didn't want to argue about free will because, honestly, that's simply so philosophical, abstract and irrelevant to the point that, I'll be blunt, nobody cares. You do have free will, everyone has, that's why God gave us a brain, so don't be worried about people who might have their freedom restricted by an entity they don't believe it exists, because Christians, who believe in God, are certainly not worried about that as well.

I didn't say that everything was God's fault; I am allowing your view that a lot of suffering is of humanity's fault by their free will, but at least a minority of situations of suffering are not due to humanity and so are due to God, so it is at fault there. Some things are God's fault; even if God were to be benevolent, it is not maximally so if some situations of insurmountable suffering are due to it.
That's an interesting statement coming from an agnostic/atheist. I can only say that some things are indeed allowed to happen by God for a greater good. However, that doesn't conflict with the fact that he loves humanity, and is benevolent.

It would yes, but as I am not gifted with the faith for God and Christ, I am left to do the deist's reasoning to attempt to get there. I don't go with this sort of God anyway (as you can see), which is one reason I set technetheism in motion, though omnibenevolence was not directly involved.

I cannot see that God is omnibenevolent with the reasoning, even if I am to attempt a perspective shift to see it from a faithful POV. The faith is holding general infinity, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence of God together in a way that I cannot make sense of, from multiple angles.
No, you just can't accept the fact that God can discipline his servants like a father disciplines his son. Bad things have happened to me because I disobeyed God in certain occasions. That doesn't conflict with the fact that he's benevolent.

Yet the inverse also occurs frequently: any time something good happens, God gets all the credit ("it's a miracle", "God has blessed our family") yet if something bad happens God gets none of the blame ("it's not God's fault", "suffering is a part of life", "there must be some plan"). It seems to me that neither side can attribute equal "credit" to God when "good" or "bad" things happen. Attribution to God is self-serving.

I just had to comment on this since this is an argument I frequently see made, both from the atheist and theist side. And it seems to me neither side realizes they are simply complements of each other.
If by "there must be a plan" you mean there's still God's interference, not "destiny's" or other stuff like that, then I would agree with you, that either the bad and the good that happens in the lives of those who serve him are directly influenced and allowed by God. I just don't agree with those that only blame either the bad things or the good things on God.

[ThisBougieLife]

No, you just can't accept the fact that God can discipline his servants like a father disciplines his son. Bad things have happened to me because I disobeyed God in certain occasions. That doesn't conflict with the fact that he's benevolent.


But is this discipline selectively applied or is it necessary every time you "disobey"? Was this a result of saying "something bad happened to me; it must have been because I disobeyed" or was it "I just disobeyed, so something bad will happen"? Hindsight is a powerful force.

What about the people who have bad things happen to them and they don't deserve it or do anything that could be called "disobeying"? It's one thing for a liar and cheater to get his comeuppance. What about someone who has done all the right things but still gets the shaft?

Do you believe that natural disasters are the result of "disobeying God"?

[Living For Love]

So every time something bad happened to you it was your own fault? You couldn't attribute any of it to chance?
I kind of don't believe in "chance", you know, unless I'm playing darts or rolling dices, something of that sort...

What about the people who have bad things happen to them and they don't deserve it? It's one thing for a liar and cheater to get his comeuppance. What about someone who has done all the right things but still gets the shaft?
I can't explain you why God allows bad things to happen to good people, even if those good people don't believe in him, but I know that he has a plan for them, we just might not be able to understand it. God loves the most hateful criminal on Earth exactly as much as he hates the most humble and altruist person on this planet. Good and bad things happen to everyone, we might think it's not fair for bad things to happen to someone who did nothing to deserve it, but I believe there's a reason why he allows it to happen.

Do you believe that natural disasters are the result of "disobeying God"?

I believe that natural disasters are the result of a world who has turned away from God, who despises him, who does not want his interference, and so the Devil takes his place. I believe that this world is, right now, dominated by the Devil.

[Uniquemind]

I kind of don't believe in "chance", you know, unless I'm playing darts or rolling dices, something of that sort...


I can't explain you why God allows bad things to happen to good people, even if those good people don't believe in him, but I know that he has a plan for them, we just might not be able to understand it. God loves the most hateful criminal on Earth exactly as much as he hates the most humble and altruist person on this planet. Good and bad things happen to everyone, we might think it's not fair for bad things to happen to someone who did nothing to deserve it, but I believe there's a reason why he allows it to happen.


I believe that natural disasters are the result of a world who has turned away from God, who despises him, who does not want his interference, and so the Devil takes his place. I believe that this world is, right now, dominated by the Devil.

Only agreeing with that last paragraph.

But want to add that Earth is the physical side of existence layered with a spiritual world as well, and the interaction between both in a synergistic relationship causes some of the anomalies (acts of god etc). Others are a result of natural design, (etc: global warming disrupting normal weather patterns) but that's our fault too but on a collective scale as a species.

There is a lot of CCTV footage which shows weird psychokinesis stuff and hauntings, including some famous haunted rooms on college campuses (see a specific youtube video about these things).

Mainly this is why I know atheism is wrong, and give more credibility to faith.

[ThisBougieLife]

I kind of don't believe in "chance", you know, unless I'm playing darts or rolling dices, something of that sort...


I can't explain you why God allows bad things to happen to good people, even if those good people don't believe in him, but I know that he has a plan for them, we just might not be able to understand it. God loves the most hateful criminal on Earth exactly as much as he hates the most humble and altruist person on this planet. Good and bad things happen to everyone, we might think it's not fair for bad things to happen to someone who did nothing to deserve it, but I believe there's a reason why he allows it to happen.


I believe that natural disasters are the result of a world who has turned away from God, who despises him, who does not want his interference, and so the Devil takes his place. I believe that this world is, right now, dominated by the Devil.

But there have always been natural disasters; they aren't unique to "right now". When was the time when the Devil did not control the world? Was that a time free of natural disasters.

As for everything else you said; it's all unfalsifiable. No matter what happens it can always be said to be part of the "plan" and that cannot be disproven or proven. That's the beauty of it.

[Porpoise101]

I'm not saying it is without purpose, I am saying it is without sense if God is omnibenevolent to us, God cannot be that with this going on.
See this is why I disagree. A God couldn't be omnibenevolent to each human, but as a collective one could be. It is in God's interest to destroy, not just create and preserve the universe. If the God did not destroy, then the world would be cluttered. So in that way, our mortal interests to stay alive conflicts with the greater, and immortal one to keep everything in dynamic balance. To me it is a noble cause for the greater good.

[Living For Love]

But there have always been natural disasters; they aren't unique to "right now". When was the time when the Devil did not control the world? Was that a time free of natural disasters.
I'd doubt there were times where the Devil's grip in this world was stronger than it is now, but either way, yes, natural disasters have always happened, possibly not as much as recently due to climate changes and stuff, though.

As for everything else you said; it's all unfalsifiable. No matter what happens it can always be said to be part of the "plan" and that cannot be disproven or proven. That's the beauty of it.
No, that's just how religion works. Nothing can be proven or unproven, you either believe it or not.

[Flapjack]

I'd doubt there were times where the Devil's grip in this world was stronger than it is now, but either way, yes, natural disasters have always happened, possibly not as much as recently due to climate changes and stuff, though.
If God is all powerful though, could he not overpower the devil?

[Living For Love]

If God is all powerful though, could he not overpower the devil?
He already has, that's why Christians exist, but humanity keeps allowing the Devil to govern their lives, and if people don't want God's interference, he won't go against their will.

[Flapjack]

He already has, that's why Christians exist, but humanity keeps allowing the Devil to govern their lives, and if people don't want God's interference, he won't go against their will.
I am not religious but that is the first explanation I have heard that makes sense!:)

[sqishy]

Cancer has a lot of environmental and behavioural influences and causes, that's a fact, so it can have a human cause.

It can have human influences/causes yes, but I said "Cancer by random genetic mutation unaffected by own lifestyle" to point out that it's nowhere near the case that all human suffering has been sufficiently influenced / caused by humanity itself.


God has a plan for each of us, but only some choose to accept it. For those who don't, for those who reject him, they are left on their own, and so God can't interfere in their lives to help them.

Do the sudden lightning strikes constitute some of these plans? It would help if you could clarify how these plans of God work out, if humans have inherent free will.



Right. Again, why is that God's fault?

It created the world, and is responsible for that which is not due to the actions of humans with their free will. God can hardly be not responsible for that, otherwise it would imply some agency not of God or humanity.



Cancer can be overcome, I've witnessed it first-hand.

I know it can be.


Dementia, on the other hand, cannot, as far as I'm aware, but I wouldn't consider it trouble, I'd just consider it the way our human body works, with its own limitations. True, there are a lot of people with 80, 90 years old who are still perfectly sane, but that can also depend on how that person lived their whole life. I could expand a bit more on this topic, if you want, particularly on how sometimes God allows someone to become demented in order to save them (it's kind of just a theory of mine, though).

If you want to expand on that topic, it may help. It feels like another strange intricate turn of argument that happens to still make these events always be the actions of this omnibenevolent God.



Death is hardly a superable challenge, though.

It isn't, exactly.

I hope you're not retrofitting an explanation that all hardships that end in death weren't actually challenged by God at all, despite their initial appearances of being so, because that's another sudden argument turn that happens to be highly convenient for you.



Also, I know it's kinda late to ask this, but what exactly do you mean by omnibenevolent? You mean God is supposed to make our lives perfect because, well, he's God?

By omnibenevolence I mean 'maximally possible / infinitely benevolent'.

I don't mean that, I mean that I cannot see how this world we are in is necessarily the best one there could possibly be, in sight of God's degree of benevolence in making it.

Hypothetically, I could say that



I understand what you're saying but I really didn't want to argue about free will because, honestly, that's simply so philosophical, abstract and irrelevant to the point that, I'll be blunt, nobody cares. You do have free will, everyone has, that's why God gave us a brain, so don't be worried about people who might have their freedom restricted by an entity they don't believe it exists, because Christians, who believe in God, are certainly not worried about that as well.

I don't see what is excessively abstract about the topic of free will that apparently makes it boring to everyone, especially if you make it relevant with he Devil and such through humanity's free will. 'Philosophical' doesn't need to be a bad word, because we're sort of doing it here already.

I don't believe that I objectively have free will, I'm (currently) more interested in freedom and dependence, and how we are dependent on some aspects of the world but not others. Anyhow, I don't need to bring it in to show my lack of sympathy for this omnibenevolent God view.



That's an interesting statement coming from an agnostic/atheist. I can only say that some things are indeed allowed to happen by God for a greater good. However, that doesn't conflict with the fact that he loves humanity, and is benevolent.

This 'greater good' fundamentally needs to manifest for humans themselves at some point in the future, I presume, because otherwise this 'greater good' is this abstraction of goodness away from where it is meaningful in the context of our lives.



No, you just can't accept the fact that God can discipline his servants like a father disciplines his son. Bad things have happened to me because I disobeyed God in certain occasions. That doesn't conflict with the fact that he's benevolent.

So you see the God-humanity interaction as analogous to parent-child?

You'll find technetheism to be even more relevant then.



There is a lot of CCTV footage which shows weird psychokinesis stuff and hauntings, including some famous haunted rooms on college campuses (see a specific youtube video about these things).

Mainly this is why I know atheism is wrong, and give more credibility to faith.

Seeing supernatural entities as real does not inherently suggest any theist or anti-theist viewpoint, so I don't get the ability to know that theism in some form is right just from that.

All that your view of the supernatural shows in itself is that there is more than physical form and dimension, nothing else.


See this is why I disagree. A God couldn't be omnibenevolent to each human, but as a collective one could be. It is in God's interest to destroy, not just create and preserve the universe. If the God did not destroy, then the world would be cluttered. So in that way, our mortal interests to stay alive conflicts with the greater, and immortal one to keep everything in dynamic balance. To me it is a noble cause for the greater good.

Why can God not be benevolent to every human, though?

If God is omnibenevolent at the larger humanity scale, but only contingently so for individual humans, then I'm not seeing any maximally great / infinite benevolence in God here.

By 'greater good' do you mean greater good across quantity of people, in quality for each person, or something else? It's a fuzzy term that needs specification here.

Do you see God's actions as 'universal caretaker' (no joke implied) in line with morality and our perceptions of it here?



No, that's just how religion works. Nothing can be proven or unproven, you either believe it or not.

Yes! Faith is required, and I hope that you're seeing how I cannot use lines of reasoning to get to this omnibenevolent God. You need to jump to it.

Even when I presume this God is around, using reasoning across the view quickly shows inconsistencies in it and the view doesn't hold for me, but I digress for sake of keeping at some diplomatic level here.


He already has, that's why Christians exist, but humanity keeps allowing the Devil to govern their lives, and if people don't want God's interference, he won't go against their will.

This part I get, the Devil being some godform manifesting out of the actions of humanity with its free will, that conflicts with the desires of God.

Doesn't sort out anything else I responded to though.

[Porpoise101]

Why can God not be benevolent to every human, though?

If God is omnibenevolent at the larger humanity scale, but only contingently so for individual humans, then I'm not seeing any maximally great / infinite benevolence in God here.

By 'greater good' do you mean greater good across quantity of people, in quality for each person, or something else? It's a fuzzy term that needs specification here.

God cannot be benevolent to each and every human at the individual level because the world doesn't exist at the levels of individuals. The interest of a rabbit runs counter to that of a wolf. Every action is interconnected and has consequences beyond individual people or creatures.

By greater good I mean that everything is better off if some sacrifices are made for the good of the rest of the world. So maybe it would be 'quantity' in your terms.

Do you see God's actions as 'universal caretaker' (no joke implied) in line with morality and our perceptions of it here?

Since God is a part of every human, it is not just an entity but a mechanism as well. This reflects the fact that people not just exist as things, but also that their actions can often live longer than themselves. "God" as a whole is a process of universal creation, preservation, and destruction. It isn't a caretaker like a babysitter, but more like an occasionally lazy gardener.

[Uniquemind]

It can have human influences/causes yes, but I said "Cancer by random genetic mutation unaffected by own lifestyle" to point out that it's nowhere near the case that all human suffering has been sufficiently influenced / caused by humanity itself.




Do the sudden lightning strikes constitute some of these plans? It would help if you could clarify how these plans of God work out, if humans have inherent free will.




It created the world, and is responsible for that which is not due to the actions of humans with their free will. God can hardly be not responsible for that, otherwise it would imply some agency not of God or humanity.




I know it can be.




If you want to expand on that topic, it may help. It feels like another strange intricate turn of argument that happens to still make these events always be the actions of this omnibenevolent God.




It isn't, exactly.

I hope you're not retrofitting an explanation that all hardships that end in death weren't actually challenged by God at all, despite their initial appearances of being so, because that's another sudden argument turn that happens to be highly convenient for you.




By omnibenevolence I mean 'maximally possible / infinitely benevolent'.

I don't mean that, I mean that I cannot see how this world we are in is necessarily the best one there could possibly be, in sight of God's degree of benevolence in making it.

Hypothetically, I could say that




I don't see what is excessively abstract about the topic of free will that apparently makes it boring to everyone, especially if you make it relevant with he Devil and such through humanity's free will. 'Philosophical' doesn't need to be a bad word, because we're sort of doing it here already.

I don't believe that I objectively have free will, I'm (currently) more interested in freedom and dependence, and how we are dependent on some aspects of the world but not others. Anyhow, I don't need to bring it in to show my lack of sympathy for this omnibenevolent God view.




This 'greater good' fundamentally needs to manifest for humans themselves at some point in the future, I presume, because otherwise this 'greater good' is this abstraction of goodness away from where it is meaningful in the context of our lives.




So you see the God-humanity interaction as analogous to parent-child?

You'll find technetheism to be even more relevant then.




Seeing supernatural entities as real does not inherently suggest any theist or anti-theist viewpoint, so I don't get the ability to know that theism in some form is right just from that.

All that your view of the supernatural shows in itself is that there is more than physical form and dimension, nothing else.




Why can God not be benevolent to every human, though?

If God is omnibenevolent at the larger humanity scale, but only contingently so for individual humans, then I'm not seeing any maximally great / infinite benevolence in God here.

By 'greater good' do you mean greater good across quantity of people, in quality for each person, or something else? It's a fuzzy term that needs specification here.

Do you see God's actions as 'universal caretaker' (no joke implied) in line with morality and our perceptions of it here?




Yes! Faith is required, and I hope that you're seeing how I cannot use lines of reasoning to get to this omnibenevolent God. You need to jump to it.

Even when I presume this God is around, using reasoning across the view quickly shows inconsistencies in it and the view doesn't hold for me, but I digress for sake of keeping at some diplomatic level here.




This part I get, the Devil being some godform manifesting out of the actions of humanity with its free will, that conflicts with the desires of God.

Doesn't sort out anything else I responded to though.

It shows that consciousness exists outside of the physical realm, and brings one a step closer to the claim the Bible makes, although not completely, you are correct.

But it gets one out of atheism, that consciousness dies at the physical death.

And remember the claim of the Bible is that God is at the top of the hierarchy even of the spiritual realm, via the Holy Spirit. (No pastor has been able to explain what the Holy Spirit is, it just I assume by logical deduction to be something like The Force of star wars).

For me there are details I'm leaving out of my post since there of a sensitive nature that I do not wish to share. To each your own though.

[Living For Love]

It can have human influences/causes yes, but I said "Cancer by random genetic mutation unaffected by own lifestyle" to point out that it's nowhere near the case that all human suffering has been sufficiently influenced / caused by humanity itself.
Yes, but like I said, that's only the way our body works. Some types of cancer, like breast cancer, are caused by deficiencies in DNA repairing mechanisms. Those things can happen naturally.

Do the sudden lightning strikes constitute some of these plans? It would help if you could clarify how these plans of God work out, if humans have inherent free will.
You'd have to ask him. I don't know God's plans for each one of us, I only know that anything that happens in our lives is allowed by him to happen for a certain reason.

It created the world, and is responsible for that which is not due to the actions of humans with their free will. God can hardly be not responsible for that, otherwise it would imply some agency not of God or humanity.
It could be caused by Devil, and God didn't stop because people don't let him interfere and take control of their lives. You want God to save children from dying, yet you're against teaching religion at school, or letting children know that they have the right to believe that a supernatural entity exist.

If you want to expand on that topic, it may help. It feels like another strange intricate turn of argument that happens to still make these events always be the actions of this omnibenevolent God.
My theory is that God gives some elderly people dementia in order to take them to Heaven. This might happen when certain people have lived a really good life, always helping others, always obeying the law, always loving their family and friends, yet didn't had the opportunity to learn from God, or simply didn't care about religion. The bible says that God prefers the simple-minded than the ones who boast about their knowledge (1 Corinthians 1:27), and so he decides to make those people suffer from dementia in their latest days, pretty much acting like children, dependent from their relatives, so that they can inherit Heaven. They might not have know about Jesus or God during their lives, or even accepted them, but because they've lived a good life, God decides to take them with him. It might seem it goes against one of the main pillars of Christianity: "No one comes to the Father except through Me [Jesus].", but I prefer not to limit God's love and compassion, because they are immense and eternal.

It isn't, exactly.

I hope you're not retrofitting an explanation that all hardships that end in death weren't actually challenged by God at all, despite their initial appearances of being so, because that's another sudden argument turn that happens to be highly convenient for you.
No, I was just saying God doesn't give anyone a challenge he knows they won't be able to overcome.

I don't mean that, I mean that I cannot see how this world we are in is necessarily the best one there could possibly be, in sight of God's degree of benevolence in making it.

Hypothetically, I could say that
This world is DEFINITELY not the world God hoped he would have when he created it, because men have betrayed him, and sin runs now rampant through humanity.

I don't see what is excessively abstract about the topic of free will that apparently makes it boring to everyone, especially if you make it relevant with he Devil and such through humanity's free will. 'Philosophical' doesn't need to be a bad word, because we're sort of doing it here already.

I don't believe that I objectively have free will, I'm (currently) more interested in freedom and dependence, and how we are dependent on some aspects of the world but not others. Anyhow, I don't need to bring it in to show my lack of sympathy for this omnibenevolent God view.
I was just saying it because I can never understand why liberals are so keen on making sure they have 100% control over their lives. Freedom is not that special or worthy. Many problems of this world would simply be over if people didn't have as much freedom as they have today. People are basically addicted to freedom, and then they use it in bad ways.

This 'greater good' fundamentally needs to manifest for humans themselves at some point in the future, I presume, because otherwise this 'greater good' is this abstraction of goodness away from where it is meaningful in the context of our lives.
The greater good might manifest in their lives at some point, it's just that we don't understand that that greater good happened because something we considered bad happened before. It's we who don't realise it.

So you see the God-humanity interaction as analogous to parent-child?

You'll find technetheism to be even more relevant then.
Yes, in some aspects I perfectly do. God calls us his sons for some reason.

I might read your technetheism thread, though (no offence) it kind of seems just one more of the hundreds of theories humanity has come up with to try to conciliate God's word and Christianity's principles with modern times, totally oblivious to the fact that it's men that should adapt to God's word and laws, not the contrary.

Yes! Faith is required, and I hope that you're seeing how I cannot use lines of reasoning to get to this omnibenevolent God. You need to jump to it.

Even when I presume this God is around, using reasoning across the view quickly shows inconsistencies in it and the view doesn't hold for me, but I digress for sake of keeping at some diplomatic level here.
That's what faith is, jumping into an abyss, blindfolded, hoping that someone somehow will be there to hold you and prevent you from falling. No lines of reasoning can explain what having faith feels like.

[sqishy]

God cannot be benevolent to each and every human at the individual level because the world doesn't exist at the levels of individuals. The interest of a rabbit runs counter to that of a wolf. Every action is interconnected and has consequences beyond individual people or creatures.

So are you saying that God is omnibenevolent because it makes the best compromise possible between the quantity of positive experience felt across all sentient beings in the world, and the quality of positive experience for each individual sentient being?



By greater good I mean that everything is better off if some sacrifices are made for the good of the rest of the world. So maybe it would be 'quantity' in your terms.

'Greater good' makes sense when positive experience for sentient beings as a whole in the present are 'trimmed' as such, in a way that the future positive experiences for sentient beings as a whole are greater and maximally so.

Does this go with that I said above in what I'm now seeing you to mean?



Since God is a part of every human, it is not just an entity but a mechanism as well. This reflects the fact that people not just exist as things, but also that their actions can often live longer than themselves. "God" as a whole is a process of universal creation, preservation, and destruction. It isn't a caretaker like a babysitter, but more like an occasionally lazy gardener.

Are you more a pantheist then, or rather seeing the world as a subset of God? (I'm aware to the likelihood that your and Living For Love 's views are different.)

'Occasional lazy gardener' is hardly the image I imagined you see in this omnibenevolent God, but it can help my viewpoint.


It shows that consciousness exists outside of the physical realm, and brings one a step closer to the claim the Bible makes, although not completely, you are correct.

Seeing a non-physical but occasionally tangible realm as existing (the 'supernatural' realm) doesn't mean that it shows consciousness is a phenomenon that can and does exist independently of the physical. All it means for sure (taken the observation as such) is that there is non-physical stuff around; I'm all for not making the presumption that the 'supernatural' is entirely/mainly made up of only conscious entities.



But it gets one out of atheism, that consciousness dies at the physical death.

You're also presuming that seeing/inferring non-physical realms means that human consciousness will go to those realms 'after' death.

Also, I don't see why you need to then believe in any god just because you believe that physics is only a subset of a greater world.

Is there something necessarily theistic about being beyond the physical, and is there something necessarily atheistic about seeing the world as entirely only physical? I don't see that.



And remember the claim of the Bible is that God is at the top of the hierarchy even of the spiritual realm, via the Holy Spirit. (No pastor has been able to explain what the Holy Spirit is, it just I assume by logical deduction to be something like The Force of star wars).

I know of the claim, yes. Many mysteries manifest, etc.



For me there are details I'm leaving out of my post since there of a sensitive nature that I do not wish to share. To each your own though.

Details on what you've seen and/or believe?


Yes, but like I said, that's only the way our body works. Some types of cancer, like breast cancer, are caused by deficiencies in DNA repairing mechanisms. Those things can happen naturally.

They are yes, but if you are to see this God as responsible for that which is not due to human free will, and intrinsic human physiology is not due to human actions through human free will, then human physiology and the risk of cancer are God's responsibility.



You'd have to ask him. I don't know God's plans for each one of us, I only know that anything that happens in our lives is allowed by him to happen for a certain reason.

Furthers my point, apart from the asking part of course.



It could be caused by Devil, and God didn't stop because people don't let him interfere and take control of their lives. You want God to save children from dying, yet you're against teaching religion at school, or letting children know that they have the right to believe that a supernatural entity exist.

If the Devil is a collective force out of the actions of humanity's free will which oppose God's plans, then lightning strikes and happenstance meteor supersonic blasts are in no way even meaningfully influenced by the actions of humans. I don't need to talk about the suffering or any human that has been influenced by another, because I don't see any humans that are responsible for lightning strikes, radon leakage, and such.



My theory is that God gives some elderly people dementia in order to take them to Heaven. This might happen when certain people have lived a really good life, always helping others, always obeying the law, always loving their family and friends, yet didn't had the opportunity to learn from God, or simply didn't care about religion. The bible says that God prefers the simple-minded than the ones who boast about their knowledge (1 Corinthians 1:27), and so he decides to make those people suffer from dementia in their latest days, pretty much acting like children, dependent from their relatives, so that they can inherit Heaven. They might not have know about Jesus or God during their lives, or even accepted them, but because they've lived a good life, God decides to take them with him. It might seem it goes against one of the main pillars of Christianity: "No one comes to the Father except through Me [Jesus].", but I prefer not to limit God's love and compassion, because they are immense and eternal.

So you see consciousness-degenerating processes to be God's way of slowly transcending people out of memory and unnecessary complexity toward heaven, like a spread-out analogy to 'usual' death? I understand the reasoning.



No, I was just saying God doesn't give anyone a challenge he knows they won't be able to overcome.

Which then meets what I was saying I hope you didn't mean.

What's the deal with e.g. lightning strikes then??



This world is DEFINITELY not the world God hoped he would have when he created it, because men have betrayed him, and sin runs now rampant through humanity.

The Earth certainly isn't yes, I'd agree if I was also faithful to this God.
Everything else about the entire universe is the same though.



I was just saying it because I can never understand why liberals are so keen on making sure they have 100% control over their lives. Freedom is not that special or worthy. Many problems of this world would simply be over if people didn't have as much freedom as they have today. People are basically addicted to freedom, and then they use it in bad ways.

Perhaps some are keen on maximising perceived freedom that they have for themselves, but perhaps many are just keen on minimising perceived unnecessary limitations that others have over them.

I agree that freedom is not inherently necessarily good. You're quite into the whole free will aspect of humans though.

Perceived freedom is a powerful idea which fuels off ingrained humans tendencies, but it's mutated in some ways and caused nastiness, yes.



The greater good might manifest in their lives at some point, it's just that we don't understand that that greater good happened because something we considered bad happened before. It's we who don't realise it.

What is goodness supposed to mean if we cannot or will not be able to perceive/know it?



Yes, in some aspects I perfectly do. God calls us his sons for some reason.

Alright.



I might read your technetheism thread, though (no offence) it kind of seems just one more of the hundreds of theories humanity has come up with to try to conciliate God's word and Christianity's principles with modern times, totally oblivious to the fact that it's men that should adapt to God's word and laws, not the contrary.

I've tried to keep it apart from the more usual theological arguments you may have heard, but nevertheless I accept that communication is always open to development and betterment.

However, if you mean 'modern times' by thinking that I mean technology in a modern electronic way, you misread what I meant by technology. By technology I mean everything between sharp flint stone to particle accelerator, inclusive.

I also prefer to search for explanations myself and understand them myself in a more wholesome 'I do it all' way of sorts, rather than accept what's been given to me by text as The Truth (no offence intended, I am talking about myself here).



That's what faith is, jumping into an abyss, blindfolded, hoping that someone somehow will be there to hold you and prevent you from falling. No lines of reasoning can explain what having faith feels like.

We all have faith, me absolutely included; I just don't have it where you do here.

[Porpoise101]

Does this go with that I said above in what I'm now seeing you to mean?

Yes

Are you more a pantheist then, or rather seeing the world as a subset of God? (I'm aware to the likelihood that your and Living For Love 's views are different.)

Yes, I see pantheism as something close to what I believe. And yes, my views are very much different than Living For Love. There is some overlap of course.

[Living For Love]

They are yes, but if you are to see this God as responsible for that which is not due to human free will, and intrinsic human physiology is not due to human actions through human free will, then human physiology and the risk of cancer are God's responsibility.
Okay, so following your line of thought, if human physiology and the risk of cancer are God's responsibility, how does that conflict with his omnibenevolence?

Which then meets what I was saying I hope you didn't mean.

What's the deal with e.g. lightning strikes then??
You mean lightning strikes from which people can survive?

What is goodness supposed to mean if we cannot or will not be able to perceive/know it?
You cannot or won't be able to perceive/know it because you don't even consider the possibility of God having been responsible for that goodness that happened in your life.

[Leprous]

Okay, so following your line of thought, if human physiology and the risk of cancer are God's responsibility, how does that conflict with his omnibenevolence?


You mean lightning strikes from which people can survive?


You cannot or won't be able to perceive/know it because you don't even consider the possibility of God having been responsible for that goodness that happened in your life.

Not everyone survives a lightning strike, is that god smiting them down?

So nobody who doesn't believe in the posibility has the ability to perceive/know goodness? Atleast that's what I understood from your post.

[Flapjack]

Okay, so following your line of thought, if human physiology and the risk of cancer are God's responsibility, how does that conflict with his omnibenevolence?
omnibenevolence- All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'.

If cancer is God's responsibility then of course he is not infinitely good!! That is assuming the God is claimed to have created everything and is all power, obviously a good can be all loving but not all powerful, that would explain why cancer exists, at least in a religious sense.

[Vlerchan]

No-one has the view of a reality in which the cited bads don't occur, so we no-one can make judgements about our current state being the product of omnibenovlence or not (con in this argument is engaged in naive empiricsm).

God is omnipotent insofar as he is the ultimate cause.

[Living For Love]

Not everyone survives a lightning strike, is that god smiting them down?
Like I said, death can't be considered a challenge to the person who died. If it was God who gave them life, he would also have the right to take it.

So nobody who doesn't believe in the posibility has the ability to perceive/know goodness? Atleast that's what I understood from your post.
Yes, to perceive the goodness that was given to them by God. If you don't believe him, you wouldn't think it was him the responsible for that goodness to happend in your life, you would think it was luck, coincidence, destiny, shooting stars, etc.

omnibenevolence- All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'.

If cancer is God's responsibility then of course he is not infinitely good!! That is assuming the God is claimed to have created everything and is all power, obviously a good can be all loving but not all powerful, that would explain why cancer exists, at least in a religious sense.
Cancer is not always necessarily God's responsibility. Why can't a God be all loving and all powerful at the same time?

[Flapjack]

Cancer is not always necessarily God's responsibility. Why can't a God be all loving and all powerful at the same time?
Of course it is, he made it!

Because if he was all loving he would want to stop the cancer and all the other horrible stuff in the world and if he was all powerful, he could.

[Leprous]

Living For Love If he is all loving, why would he randomly take the lives of people who don't deserve to die?

[Vlerchan]

Because if he was all loving he would want to stop the cancer and all the other horrible stuff in the world and if he was all powerful, he could.
@Living For Love If he is all loving, why would he randomly take the lives of people who don't deserve to die?
Earlier in this thread:

No-one has the view of a reality in which the cited bads don't occur, so we no-one can make judgements about our current state being the product of omnibenovlence or not (con in this argument is engaged in naive empiricsm).

God is omnipotent insofar as he is the ultimate cause.

[Living For Love]

Of course it is, he made it!
God invented cancer? How so?

Because if he was all loving he would want to stop the cancer and all the other horrible stuff in the world and if he was all powerful, he could.
He would, yes, but humanity prevents him from doing so.

Living For Love If he is all loving, why would he randomly take the lives of people who don't deserve to die?
God's actions can be a lot of things, but "random" is surely not one of them. Nobody deserves to die unless God wishes so. We all are going to die, true, but nobody knows when, it's only up to him.

[Vlerchan]

God invented cancer? How so?
Ultimate cause, and Cancer isn't the product of human-agency.

[... death]'s only up to him.
Isn't the reason suicide is such a grave crime because it appropriates god's natural right to reign of the death of man?

[Leprous]

God's actions can be a lot of things, but "random" is surely not one of them. Nobody deserves to die unless God wishes so. We all are going to die, true, but nobody knows when, it's only up to him.

So god pretty much is like "Who am I going to kill today?" Imagine that god robs a child of its life, making the parents depressed and destroying their lives, how is that all loving?

[Vlerchan]

[...] kill today [...]
The idea of 'today' isn't applicable to a god that necessarily exists outside our conception of time, and is omnisentient.

God always knew it was their time to die and has known since he creation of the universe.

Imagine that god robs a child of its life, making the parents depressed and destroying their lives, how is that all loving?
Imagine the strength it inspires in friends and neighbours and relatives that might get together to help these parents.

Imagine the original point I made, that this is just naive empiricism and doesn't demonstrate a thing.

[Leprous]

The idea of 'today' isn't applicable to a god that necessarily exists outside our conception of time, and is omnisentient.

God always knew it was their time to die and has known since he creation of the universe.


Imagine the strength it inspires in friends and neighbours and relatives that might get together to help these parents.

Imagine the original point I made, that this is just naive empiricism and doesn't demonstrate a thing.

So according to you god takes lives to make others love these parents (in this example). It seems like a rash method don't you think?

[Living For Love]

Ultimate cause, and Cancer isn't the product of human-agency.
Some types of cancer are human-induced (smoking, heavy drugs, alcohol abuse, obesity, sedentary lifestyle, etc.)

Isn't the reason suicide is such a grave crime because it appropriates god's natural right to reign of the death of man?
Yes, because if you commit suicide, you're basically ending your life sooner than God would want it to end. You're basically ruining the plans he had for you.

So god pretty much is like "Who am I going to kill today?" Imagine that god robs a child of its life, making the parents depressed and destroying their lives, how is that all loving?
God wouldn't do it to make the parents depressed and to destroy their lives. If the parents believe in him, they would understand that if God gave them their son, he would also have the right to take him from them, and they would rely on their faith to overcome that challenge.

[Vlerchan]

So according to you god takes lives to make others love these parents (in this example). It seems like a rash method don't you think?
Without the equivalent to god's omnisentience - who am I to judge?

Some types of cancer are human-induced (smoking, heavy drugs, alcohol abuse, obesity, sedentary lifestyle, etc.)
Some activities increase one's risk of cancer. The underlying condition exists regardless.

If the parents believe in him [...]
But - since god is omnisentient - he recognises the parents that don't believe in him and, if that's his case, he is inducing depression in some parents, no?

I also don't think that we, as human beings, should attempt to defend gods specific actions, even if we might be able to understand them.

[Leprous]

Living For Love How did god gave them their song? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. It's not because something is given the person (or being) giving it has the right to take it away whenever it feels like it.

[Living For Love]

But - since god is omnisentient - he recognises the parents that don't believe in him and, if that's his case, he is inducing depression in some parents, no?
No, because in that case, if the parent's didn't believe in God, he couldn't do nothing to avoid it (son's death) from happening.

Living For Love How did god gave them their song?
I can cite the Bible verses that explain how each person is made a living being by God.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. It's not because something is given the person (or being) giving it has the right to take it away whenever it feels like it.
The son's life isn't the parents property.

[Vlerchan]

No, because in that case, if the parent's didn't believe in God, he couldn't do nothing to avoid it (son's death) from happening.

You're not claiming that god has no power over the children of non-believers, are you?

Nonetheless, I don't agree that's the case. Being the ultimate cause and possessing omnisentience gives god power over all outcomes.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.
It is. Re: ultimate cause, omnisentience.

[Leprous]

Living For Love Please tell me how he makes children. Vlerchan He didn't make the specific child though, he may have been the cause of everything but he did not create the child himself.

[Living For Love]

You're not claiming that god has no power over the children of non-believers, are you?

Nonetheless, I don't agree that's the case. Being the ultimate cause and possessing omnisentience gives god power over all outcomes.
I'm claiming that if people don't want God to protect their children, he won't go against their will.

Living For Love Please tell me how he makes children. Vlerchan He didn't make the specific child though, he may have been the cause of everything but he did not create the child himself.
Psalm 139:13-16

13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them. [ESV]

[Vlerchan]

@Vlerchan He didn't make the specific child though, he may have been the cause of everything but he did not create the child himself.
He consciously constructed every input that went into the formation of that child, with the associated knowledge that these inputs would form the child.

He created the specific child.

I'm claiming that if people don't want God to protect their children, he won't go against their will.

This seems incoherent in an environment of which god is the ultimate cause of. In the case of cancer he is thus engaged in protecting the children of religious believers, from the actions of himself.

It's more reasonable to posit that - as the ultimate cause - he's choosing for one action or the other to come over the child. Thus, he can only be choosing to harm the child and thus harm the parents.

[Leprous]

Living For Love So one person says god formed them so it must be true? Also, who is this about if I may ask?

[Living For Love]

This seems incoherent in an environment of which god is the ultimate cause of. In the case of cancer he is thus engaged in protecting the children of religious believers, from the actions of himself.
He's engaged in protecting the children from Evil, which is the lack of God.

It's more reasonable to posit that - as the ultimate cause - he's choosing for one action or the other to come over the child. Thus, he can only be choosing to harm the child and thus harm the parents.
He's hardly harming the children if he decides to take their life.

Living For Love So one person says god formed them so it must be true? Also, who is this about if I may ask?
It's not one person, it's the Bible. Those verses were written by David.

[Flapjack]

God invented cancer? How so?
He would, yes, but humanity prevents him from doing so.


He made everything unless you're suggesting he isn't very good at using his infinite power?

How would humanity prevent an all powerful being from doing what he wants?

He's hardly harming the children if he decides to take their life.

If someone killed my kids, I'd consider it harm! What about children being born blind? Or with their heart on the outside of their body?

[Vlerchan]

He's engaged in protecting the children from Evil, which is the lack of God.
Evil might grow in men's hearts and minds - but do you have another place in mind where god, being the ultimate cause, is absent?

Cancer is also a product of the the ultimate cause so I see the argument on god protecting people from evil, as failing on considering that.

He's hardly harming the children if he decides to take their life.
[...] thus harm the parents.

[Leprous]

Living For Love So if I do not believe in a god does that make me evil? Since evil is a lack of god according to you.

[Living For Love]

He made everything unless you're suggesting he isn't very good at using his infinite power?
He made our body, yes, but our body has flaws and limitations.

How would humanity prevent an all powerful being from doing what he wants?
Because he also created humanity and he doesn't want to go against the will of those who despise him. He doesn't want to force people to love him.

If someone killed my kids, I'd consider it harm! What about children being born blind? Or with their heart on the outside of their body?
The harm would be done on you, not on them. Children being born blind or with their heart outside their body might be the plan of God for their families, though nowadays they would simply be aborted.

Evil might grow in men's hearts and minds - but do you have another place in mind where god, being the ultimate cause, is absent?

Cancer is also a product of the the ultimate cause so I see the argument on god protecting people from evil, as failing on considering that.
Evil grows because of the Devil's influence on those people.

Living For Love So if I do not believe in a god does that make me evil? Since evil is a lack of god according to you.
No, but it makes you more susceptible to Evil.

[Vlerchan]

Evil grows because of the Devil's influence on those people.
Good. But as is evident, this doesn't undermine the earlier point I made.

[Flapjack]

He made our body, yes, but our body has flaws and limitations.
Well was he following human body blueprints? Why do our bodies have so many issues if he made them and he is all powerful?

Because he also created humanity and he doesn't want to go against the will of those who despise him. He doesn't want to force people to love him.

I can respect a guy not forcing people to love him, although if that was the case... why send them to hell?

Going against their will? That explains him not saving the suicidal but what about those hit by lightning or tsunamis?

The harm would be done on you, not on them. Children being born blind or with their heart outside their body might be the plan of God for their families, though nowadays they would simply be aborted.
So the all forgiving skygod punishes a family by giving them a child that is blind or disables in some other horrific way? Does he not consider the child that must grow up and live with that?

I swear he didn't like abortions? Is that why he dosen't like them? Because he wants to have them be born disabled and disfigured to punish families?

Evil grows because of the Devil's influence on those people.
Okayy so can't the all powerful God pop down to hell and stop the devil?

[Vlerchan]

Is that why he dosen't like them?
He doesn't like them because one can't enter the church of god - and thus, the light of god - until baptism.

---

Worth noting that I answered all the other points made in this post, previous. I don't agree with Living For Love's defence but that doesn't make the argument against him rational either.

[Living For Love]

Good. But as is evident, this doesn't undermine the earlier point I made.
What exactly was the point you made? Sorry, I'm a bit lost due to all the quotes and stuff...

Well was he following human body blueprints? Why do our bodies have so many issues if he made them and he is all powerful?
Because we're mortals.

I can respect a guy not forcing people to love him, although if that was the case... why send them to hell?
But people don't believe in Hell either...

Going against their will? That explains him not saving the suicidal but what about those hit by lightning or tsunamis?
What you mean exactly? The "not saving the suicidal" is also debatable.

So the all forgiving skygod punishes a family by giving them a child that is blind or disables in some other horrific way? Does he not consider the child that must grow up and live with that?

I swear he didn't like abortions? Is that why he dosen't like them? Because he wants to have them be born disabled and disfigured to punish families?
You're seriously calling the birth of a disabled child a punishment? That's what you think disabled children are, a burden for their parents? He obviously considers that the child must grow up and live with it, that's why he will help them during all their life, the child and the parents. It's not a punishment, it's a blessing.

Okayy so can't the all powerful God pop down to hell and stop the devil?
He already did. Devil has no power on his own, he only has power where God isn't allowed to act.

[Flapjack]

Because we're mortals.
Sooo in order to make mortals he had to have them get cancer and horrific disabilities?

But people don't believe in Hell either...
I knowww but why does God send them there if he is all forgiving?

What you mean exactly? The "not saving the suicidal" is also debatable.

I agree it is debatable, he should save them but you said something like he doesn't want to go against the will of people by saving them but unless you're suicidal I am assuming you want to be saved. Alsooo a benefit of being all knowing is knowing if people want to be saved.

You're seriously calling the birth of a disabled child a punishment? That's what you think disabled children are, a burden for their parents? He obviously considers that the child must grow up and live with it, that's why he will help them during all their life, the child and the parents. It's not a punishment, it's a blessing.
Noooo I do not think they're a punishment, I asked you why mr skygod decided it would be a good idea to have children born blind and with hearts outside of their chest to which you replied it was something like a plan for the child's family.

Being born blind is not a blessing. Being born with fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiv is not a blessing.

If he considers that the child must grow up with it and does it anyway then isn't he evil? Certainly not all kind.


He already did. Devil has no power on his own, he only has power where God isn't allowed to act.
Then how is the devil making evil grow? As you said earlier, 'Evil grows because of the Devil's influence on those people.'

Why is God not allowed to act? Who is forbidding him? God's God?

[Living For Love]

Sooo in order to make mortals he had to have them get cancer and horrific disabilities?
No, he made a body which has its limitations because it's a mortal body. Not everyone gets cancer or horrific disabilities, but everyone dies.

I knowww but why does God send them there if he is all forgiving?
Because they DON'T want to be with God!!!! Because God doesn't want to go AGAINST their will!!!!

I agree it is debatable, he should save them but you said something like he doesn't want to go against the will of people by saving them but unless you're suicidal I am assuming you want to be saved.
No, they don't want to be saved, otherwise they would believe in God and accept Jesus Christ as their saviour.

Alsooo a benefit of being all knowing is knowing if people want to be saved.
And he knows, that's why he saves the ones who want to be saved and doesn't save the ones who don't want to be saved. :)

Noooo I do not think they're a punishment, I asked you why mr skygod decided it would be a good idea to have children born blind and with hearts outside of their chest to which you replied it was something like a plan for the child's family.
Ok

Being born blind is not a blessing. Being born with fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiv is not a blessing.
If it's not a blessing what is it?

If he considers that the child must grow up with it and does it anyway then isn't he evil? Certainly not all kind.
Because he knows that the child and the parents will be able to overcome it.

Then how is the devil making evil grow? As you said earlier, 'Evil grows because of the Devil's influence on those people.'
The Devil is making evil grow because people refuse to have God's help, and so the Devil sees an opportunity to pull those people closer to him, to make them corrupted and doing all kinds of things that are not approved by God.

Why is God not allowed to act? Who is forbidding him? God's God?
No, humanity is forbidding him. I think I've repeated this for the sixth time in this thread.

[sqishy]

Okay, so following your line of thought, if human physiology and the risk of cancer are God's responsibility, how does that conflict with his omnibenevolence?

He made our body, yes, but our body has flaws and limitations.

If benevolence is 'the quality of being well-meaning', the well-meaning being that which intends to support a positive experience for a sentient being here, and omnibenevolence is infinite / maximally possible well-meaning that supports a maximally possible positive experience for a sentient being (in quality in the moment and quantity over time), then how is ageing process of human physiology (with risk of terminal illness) the work of omnibenevolent God?

It is hardly difficult to imagine an alternate world where human terminal ilnesses are not a thing. What about terminal ilnesses necessitate their existence in humanity if God is to be omnibenevolent?



You mean lightning strikes from which people can survive?

No.

I'd say all lightning strikes, but I'm making allowances here...



You cannot or won't be able to perceive/know it because you don't even consider the possibility of God having been responsible for that goodness that happened in your life.

No. I am open to considering the possibility of a benevolent God being responsible for possibility of some goodness in my life (don't I have free will, which is causally separate from God's plan?), but not an omnibenevolent one.


No-one has the view of a reality in which the cited bads don't occur, so we no-one can make judgements about our current state being the product of omnibenovlence or not (con in this argument is engaged in naive empiricsm).

I know that, and that is why I am talking not about omnibenevolence as it is for humans, rather than for God. I have my reasons.
(what did you mean by "we no-one" ?)


God is omnipotent insofar as he is the ultimate cause.

It could be, but omnibenevolence is another thing.


Like I said, death can't be considered a challenge to the person who died. If it was God who gave them life, he would also have the right to take it.



God's actions can be a lot of things, but "random" is surely not one of them. Nobody deserves to die unless God wishes so. We all are going to die, true, but nobody knows when, it's only up to him.

God taking my life is requiring help on your part to integrate it into the omnibenevolence.

Do all circumstances of death mean God taking one's life, for you?



Yes, to perceive the goodness that was given to them by God. If you don't believe him, you wouldn't think it was him the responsible for that goodness to happend in your life, you would think it was luck, coincidence, destiny, shooting stars, etc.

That doesn't mean you are unable to perceive goodness though, which is what The Special One was asking.



He would, yes, but humanity prevents him from doing so.

I was talking about cancers that were not of human influence/cause; what you're saying does not make sense.



Cancer is not always necessarily God's responsibility. Why can't a God be all loving and all powerful at the same time?

How is cancer not God's responsibility, if it is not humans'?


The idea of 'today' isn't applicable to a god that necessarily exists outside our conception of time, and is omnisentient.

God always knew it was their time to die and has known since he creation of the universe.

He consciously constructed every input that went into the formation of that child, with the associated knowledge that these inputs would form the child.

He created the specific child.

Living For Love

This omniscience is with conflict of humanity's inherent free will.

The recent times of this thread, and a huge section of the technetheism thread, are showing to me how all these ideas of God cannot coincide. Keep one of the perceived qualities of this God, and I can argue that at least one of the others cannot go with it.



Imagine the strength it inspires in friends and neighbours and relatives that might get together to help these parents.

Imagine the original point I made, that this is just naive empiricism and doesn't demonstrate a thing.

Living For Love

Perhaps the debate needs to turn more to benevolence as it is for humanity, and its similarities/differences with benevolence as it is for this God (I have been holding the former so far).


Some types of cancer are human-induced (smoking, heavy drugs, alcohol abuse, obesity, sedentary lifestyle, etc.)

Not all, which is why I brought up the random critical genetic mutation cause of cancer as an example before.



Yes, because if you commit suicide, you're basically ending your life sooner than God would want it to end. You're basically ruining the plans he had for you.

Is it not against omnibenevolence if God otherwise (and, critically, sometimes) ends your life sooner before you would want it to end?



God wouldn't do it to make the parents depressed and to destroy their lives. If the parents believe in him, they would understand that if God gave them their son, he would also have the right to take him from them, and they would rely on their faith to overcome that challenge.

As before, I'm temporarily 'accepting' for your large ' God's challenges for humanity as a test of their faith in God ' idea.



The son's life isn't the parents property.

It is their responsibility.

If God can do better parenting of the child 'alone' than with his/her parents, then demonstrate it.


He's engaged in protecting the children from Evil, which is the lack of God.

Which he evidently can and does fail at, with humanity's free will from God's supposed omniscient plan.



He's hardly harming the children if he decides to take their life.

Death is the gravest of all human evils. It literally renders a person incapable of experiencing any earthly good.
[From the Death Penalty thread.]

Do you agree with this?

If you do, (then by analogy) God is evil in taking the life of children...



The harm would be done on you, not on them. Children being born blind or with their heart outside their body might be the plan of God for their families, though nowadays they would simply be aborted.

...but sure, invoke the "it's God's challenge for us" defence instead. Quite convenient, if I may say so.


You're seriously calling the birth of a disabled child a punishment? That's what you think disabled children are, a burden for their parents? He obviously considers that the child must grow up and live with it, that's why he will help them during all their life, the child and the parents. It's not a punishment, it's a blessing.

Flapjack was talking about disabled children as 'horrific' in anticipation that this would be part of your argument, rather than him taking that view.



He already did. Devil has no power on his own, he only has power where God isn't allowed to act.

Right, let me try to summarise this 'love triangle' of sorts.

God: omnipotent, is responsible for the world including humans, except

Humanity: sentient species made by God, who have free will and alter aspects of the world with their technology, meaning that God is responsible for world's existence but not forms of part of it altered by humanity (right?).

The Devil: a synergetic entity which is of all actions of humanity that are contrary to God's 'expectations' for humanity's actions in/on the world, whose actions are therefore free from God's intervention. The God controls that the devil acts, but does not control how the devil acts. The devil's form is free from God's intentions.



No, humanity is forbidding him. I think I've repeated this for the sixth time in this thread.

How do you define God's omnipotence?

Do you see omnipotence to God to be equivalent to omnipotence to humanity?