Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
First, it needs to be demonstrated if we have an example of anything created that, in of itself, accurately reflects upon the nature and motives of its creator.
If an omnipotent creator did not want children to die of painful cancers at the age of 10, then no children would die of horrible and painful cancers at the age of 10. The reasoning is very straightforward.
So either God allows children to die of painful diseases, or God is incapable of stopping it. Which is it?
Absolutely it does. Synthetic a priori knowledge is certainly possible. Kant's ethics might have been atrocious, but his epistemology was quite brilliant.Pure reason without evidence does not prove anything.
All too simple, unfortunately.But, here's why pure reason I think you need to address my point:
- Bakers are creators
- Cakes are creations
- Bakers make cakes.
- Cakes are made with flour, salt, sugar, and baking soda.
- A god is a creator
- A god's creation is made with matter, energy, good, evil
- Bakers are not necessarily in essence flour, salt, sugar, and baking soda
- A god is not necessarily in essence matter, energy, good nor evil
Enjoy the unadulterated, simplistic reason.
Of everything. That's what omniscience means.Perfect knowledge of what?
The ontological argument fails but not for the reasons you think it does. Synthetic a priori knowledge is certainly attainable, but this "God proof" mixes up the necessary and sufficient conditions. It's circular reasoning, essentially drawing conclusions about existence of an entity based on its properties, because, again, possible beings existing requires evidence. However, advancing claims of impossible beings requires pure reason alone, because of our invocation of law of non-contradiction in logic. You're getting your epistemologies mixed up.God by definition is the greatest of all possible beings. God would not be the greatest of all possible beings if He didn't exist. Therefore, God exists.
Ontology does not prove existence, unless you want to say the preceding is true.
And my response, something you completely did not address, was that this elusive purpose of which we might not be privy to makes God a slave to his creation. Why's that? Because if there is indeed a purpose or goal that God wants to achieve, given that he's all-powerful and all-knowing he could both get at this other purpose we don't know of and not have us suffer. Yet he chose this route. You've made God a slave to this unknown and unknowable purpose. Our lack of knowledge of what that purpose is doesn't take away from the fact that whatever it is you're confining him to it, making him not omnipotent.No, in fact you are confused. I said without perfect knowledge of the future, we are unable to make moral judgments about God in the present, because we don't know where all of this evil is heading. It might have a purpose.
But the problem is believers have arrived at a specific answer regardless of this lack of perfect knowledge. Namely that he's good. Based on what? Faith. They've jettisoned their own reasoning faculties about using the morality they've got to simply assume God must be loving. As Galileo observed, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use."Now, it might not, or the purpose might be malevolent. But, without perfect knowledge of the future, it is impossible for anyone to discern.
Yet heaven is an attendant belief for Christians, no? If heaven is this realm of existence absent of suffering, then the point is not moot because we can compare and contrast. And, moreover, your "simple logic" once more makes God a slave to his creation. Why would God be confined to making a world in which suffering must be present for it to be better than not if he is indeed all-powerful? You're now attacking the omnipotent characteristic -- hence the problem in theodicy.Do you really believe this? The logic is simple. If the world is better with suffering than without it, than your point is moot.
You don't see it because you don't want to.No, He does not necessarily, but maybe He wants to. I don't see the contradiction here.
Sure you are. Are you not a Christian? You're also saying it is impossible to make moral assessments because of our limited knowledge. Just as we need not have omniscience with respect to all bachelors on Earth that have ever lived to make the inference that bachelors cannot be married, so too can we draw proper inferences about contradictions with respect to God without having omniscience as God supposedly does.Actually, I'm not, I'm making no positive claims about God's nature here. You are.
most of the time the answer you will get is free will
If an omnipotent creator did not want children to die of painful cancers at the age of 10, then no children would die of horrible and painful cancers at the age of 10. The reasoning is very straightforward.
So either God allows children to die of painful diseases, or God is incapable of stopping it. Which is it?
Absolutely it does. Synthetic a priori knowledge is certainly possible. Kant's ethics might have been atrocious, but his epistemology was quite brilliant.
All too simple, unfortunately.
Now you've removed one particular characteristic of God, namely omni-benevolence.
The point you're making here is a straw man.
Of everything. That's what omniscience means.
The ontological argument fails but not for the reasons you think it does. Synthetic a priori knowledge is certainly attainable, but this "God proof" mixes up the necessary and sufficient conditions. It's circular reasoning, essentially drawing conclusions about existence of an entity based on its properties, because, again, possible beings existing requires evidence. However, advancing claims of impossible beings requires pure reason alone, because of our invocation of law of non-contradiction in logic. You're getting your epistemologies mixed up.
And my response, something you completely did not address, was that this elusive purpose of which we might not be privy to makes God a slave to his creation. Why's that? Because if there is indeed a purpose or goal that God wants to achieve, given that he's all-powerful and all-knowing he could both get at this other purpose we don't know of and not have us suffer. Yet he chose this route. You've made God a slave to this unknown and unknowable purpose.
But the problem is believers have arrived at a specific answer regardless of this lack of perfect knowledge. Namely that he's good. Based on what? Faith.
Not really, because within Christian metaphysics eternal damnation exists side-by-side. The Scripture says, "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:22, 23).Yet heaven is an attendant belief for Christians, no? If heaven is this realm of existence absent of suffering, then the point is not moot because we can compare and contrast.
Maybe I'm just stupid, that's always possible.You don't see it because you don't want to.
You said God "might" have a plan in which suffering is necessary. It doesn't have to be necessary if God is omnipotent.
You're also saying it is impossible to make moral assessments because of our limited knowledge.
I'm not. You keep saying this because you want to impose this supposed argument on me as though I'm making it. I'm not. Stop shoving straw men at me and putting words in my mouth.Using your esteemed "reason" I demonstrated that you cannot extrapolate characteristics of the creator from elements of what it has created.
You said he is neither good nor evil. Omni-benevolence is good. It is the highest good that could ever exist. One cannot be both good and not good simultaneously. That is a contradiction. This isn't a faulty premise. You can whine and moan all you want and it won't change a thing about the reality of it.So, I didn't remove "omni-benevolence" from the characteristics of God, but neither did I add it.
No, you know what? I'm done with you. If you want to show where the holes are in my arguments. Fine. Do so. But if you're going to complain about arguments I'm clearly not making you are being completely dishonest. Never did I make a claim that I can know everything. I very clearly said this in my last post. I said despite our lack of knowledge we can make inferences. I have no patience for deliberate deceitfulness.My point is that your logic is faulty. We cannot understand the nature of the Creator from the creation with any degree of certainty. You are making a positive claim that you can, but you have failed to even begin showing how logically you can do that.
Probably your best concession yet.Maybe I'm just stupid, that's always possible.
Using your esteemed "reason" I demonstrated that you cannot extrapolate characteristics of the creator from elements of what it has created.
I'm not.
You keep saying this because you want to impose this supposed argument on me as though I'm making it.
Correct, I am not here to argue that God is good. My argument is that you cannot prove with any degree of certainty He is bad, because your logic does not prove out that conclusion.You said he is neither good nor evil.
No, you know what? I'm done with you.
I But if you're going to complain about arguments I'm clearly not making you are being completely dishonest.
I said despite our lack of knowledge we can make inferences.
It is the only thing I would have to concede voluntarily, because neither your logic or arguments would compel me to concede anything else, being that they don't prove anything.Probably your best concession yet.
Guys, put your Epicurus down for a second. Before we even need to explore his logic, we need to just state clearly whether there is anything that is created that conveys the nature of its creator, aside from the fact that a creator has the ability to create it.
Very clearly, the painful diseases are as much a part of His plan as the torture and murder of His Son, where have I denied this? What you cannot demonstrate is how it is preferable not to have any evil at all in all situations.
I am not imposing an argument. How is it inaccurate to say that you observe evil in creation and then conclude if it is in the creation then whatever created has to be evil?
My argument is that you cannot prove with any degree of certainty He is bad, because your logic does not prove out that conclusion.
I don't need to prove anything about God's nature, because I'm not making any positive claims about His nature. You are. So, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
If your only recourse is to ignore everything we say, and yet expect us to respond to everything you say, then it isn't much of a discussion.
You forgot the additional requirement that the creator be omnipotent and omniscient.
If God is not omnipotent and is incapable of stopping evil, then the argument changes.
Who says? Should a parent prevent a child from ever making mistakes or learning things the hard way? Are you a fan of home schooling?If God can stop evil, but does not, that makes him bad.
Yes, but would I be a bad god? Is the greatest of all possible gods compelled to at all times do what humans view to be good? Isn't that an anthropocentric view of the universe?You would be as bad as a person who does not reach out a hand to save a drowning person.
Are you saying that christians do not claim that God is omnipotent?
No, you are employing a strawman. I don't believe in a God that prevents children from drowning at all times. I believe in a God that ordains evil, but does not create it nor is tainted by it. Now, you can disagree with this but I am not here to prove that God exists. I am just pointing out that argument doesn't use a workable premise nor workable logic.All we are doing is using the God that christians claim exists
I didn't forget your argument, what I am saying is that your method of determining what the nature of a creator is by looking at the parts of what it creates is not workable, because I cannot apply that method to anything else.
Again, you requoted Epicurus instead of addressing my actual argument, which is that youc annot employ EPicurus' logic to apply in other situations, so it's a redutio ad absurdum.
Who says? Should a parent prevent a child from ever making mistakes or learning things the hard way? Are you a fan of home schooling?
Yes, but would I be a bad god? Is the greatest of all possible gods compelled to at all times do what humans view to be good? Isn't that an anthropocentric view of the universe?
No, what I am saying is that I am not the one making a positive claim, so I don't have a burden of proof to fulfill. You are making a positive claim that God is evil, so you are making a positive claim.
Further, your method of making that claim is inapplicable to everything else in existence, which puts your positive claim into doubt.
I don't believe in a God that prevents children from drowning at all times.
tHE POINT IS i ALREADY OFFERED MY COUNTER ARGUMENT TO ePICURUS AND INSTEAD OF HAVING MY COUNTER ARGUMENT ADDRESSED, i HAVE ePICURUS REPEATED TO ME. (Caps, sorry)
Your counter argument is just your say so. There is nothing to address.
You did not address my argument that it can be applied.
I was not aware that you addressed a different argument than Epicurus', could you elaborate on that? Then, can you please respond to my counterargument against Epicurus instead of ignoring it?You did not address my argument that it can be applied.
No, but are you saying a good parent would never use any negative reinforcement whatsoever with a child?Are you saying that a good parent will stand by and watch their 3 year old child wander into a street and be hit by a car?
I say that an omnipotent God who could stop evil but does not is a bad deity.
So far, all you can do is tell me that I am not allowed to use this line of reasoning because you don't like it. I need a better reason than that.
Your definition of "good" and "moral" is not only anthropocentric, but likely Eurocentric. My cats don't have any view or morality (at least I think) but they have a much different view of what is good and what isn't. So, you are telling me that a being above us could not possibly have a different view of what is good and moral than us?Good gods should do what is moral. Both humans and gods have the ability to judge morality.
My positive evidence is that evil exists when it should not exist if God is good and also omnipotent.
I hope you see by now, the only reason you can even reach this conclusion is based upon the false premise that it is preferable not to have evil at all. And again, without perfect knowledge of the future nor perfect knowledge of what is "good" and "moral," you cannot be confident in such claims.The God described by christianity is omnipotent, so therefore that God is evil.
It isn't inapplicable to everything else. That is just something you have made up.
Yay, at least we have a bad attempt here! Finger prints on a pot? What does that prove to me about the potter's nature? That he probably had fingers, I suppose. Oh yeah, he is a potter, being that he made a pot.I can look at a pot and sometimes find the fingerprints of the potter in the clay. There are tons of examples I can cite where we can use the creation to tell us about the creator.
No, I don't believe in the God you dreamed up. I believe in the God dreamed up in Scripture who allows there to be evil for a time on purpose.If that God is also omnipotent, then you believe in an immoral God.
Why do you assume we are solely coming from the perspective of a creator-creation mindset?
I don't get it. You seem to assume that we reach the verdict of the traits of God by observing the natural world. That is, we start solely from the bottom up.
You assume we gather the traits that God is evil (I agree that it does not automatically mean that God is evil, but it does show that God either does not care enough about everyone or that he has a pretty good reason for evil) solely from the knowledge that evil exists.
Our definition is becoming awfully sloppy at this point. Unless the word "probably" is "definitely", then Epicurus' assertion cannot be substantiated. My assertion is that we do not have the evidence nor capacity to prove that probably, unlikely, or definitely would apply there. And because of this, the "problem of evil" cannot be addressed to begin with and anyone who makes positive claims about ti ultimately falls into contradiction.omnibenevolent- The being desires the highest possible good for, at the least, sentient beings, but probably living things in general...
It cares for all the beings in question equally in this regard.
It is clear that suffering, pain, and wrongdoing that leads to suffering and pain exist in our universe...We have established the existence of evil.
Do you object to any of what I have said so far, in particular my definitions?
If your only recourse is to ignore everything we say, and yet expect us to respond to everything you say, then it isn't much of a discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?