Why is God omnibenevolent?

[Thir7ySev3n]

You assume too much...Untrue, but are dismissing my knowledge without basis.

It is not assumption by definition when it is demonstrable, as it further became in your most recent response.

It’s the technical term used by those so educated, but not accurate in common meaning of the word “caused” which is important for the majority here who dud not take phil101. “First Caused” is inaccurate as applied to God.

Dorothy, read cause NOT caused. Every time the word has been used I have said cause without the d. A letter of difference is a world of difference in language. I am not inclined to believe this is an accident of reading on your part since you actually designated the proper communication of merely cause in your previous response. Again, first cause and being uncaused are synonymous here, that's what makes it first, that nothing comes before it. Elementary philosophy. If you want to say it is understood by those "so educated" in philosophy, I would say this is so elementary that it will likely be understood by most (and has been thus far by anyone I have had this discussion with who has no prior education in philosophy). However, it would simply demonstrate my point that you don't understand philosophy and so shouldn't be assessing its value or capabilities.

Some people do not enjoy bananas so this whole line of reasoning fails when applied to real life...Capacity to enjoy at all does not mean all humans enjoy bananas...But the truth is not all humans enjoy bananas.

I have already explained the fallacy in this response. The argument is that human enjoyment is a creation of God and bananas were created enjoyable. This is why bananas taste good. You can not argue this point without contending against its two actual premises: 1. God created humans and their capacity for enjoyment; 2. Bananas were created enjoyable. You are not defeating that point by designating the possibility they will not be enjoyed as it is not a premise.

I urge you to study the scientific method before relying on thinking detached from reality.

And this is just weird and out of place. I suppose it was purposed for ad hominem as it doesn't logically connect with anything you were able to soundly demonstrate. Also, it is funny to note that the scientific method is based on philosophy (I pray you know this).

LEt us look at that again... That you start out being insulting to me personally tells me that your argument is weak and you likely know it. So the best defence is a starting offense.

It doesn't tell you that. You tell yourself that since this "insult" as you call it serves as a description of your quality of argument as demonstrated. When something that potentially offends can be demonstrated and is relevant to the argument, it is not fallaciously ad hominem. Ad hominem is when an insult replaces an argument, not when insult is perceived in the prelude to an argument as relevant to it (about your ignorance of philosophy).

This says nothing worth saying and has no direct link the anything following...IT is true, of course, but no relation to anything else you say. God is, essentially...Again true, but not connected to the previous or the following.

This part was humourous, but very disappointing. Its disappointing because it is so obviously wrong I am convinced you are simply trying to save face with your exposed misgivings. This is a fluid, deductive argument. All the premises plainly follow from eachother. God created all things (1), therefore God also created that which enjoys and what can be enjoyed (2). The fact that you think those aren't connected (God created all things, therefore also these things), and that point 3 doesn't follow (God created an enjoyable thing with the capacity to be enjoyed, doubly clarified in advance) is simply baffling. I am actually stunned by the absurdity of that statement.

Bananas are not enjoyable for everything so that is not a true statment as written. Bananas are not enjoyable to some people. But many people say bananas do not taste good.

I've clarified this erroneous understanding in my previous post and many times in this one.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It is not assumption by definition when it is demonstrable, as it further became in your most recent response.



Dorothy, read cause NOT caused. Every time the word has been used I have said cause without the d. A letter of difference is a world of difference in language. I am not inclined to believe this is an accident of reading on your part since you actually designated the proper communication of merely cause in your previous response. Again, first cause and being uncaused are synonymous here, that's what makes it first, that nothing comes before it. Elementary philosophy. If you want to say it is understood by those "so educated" in philosophy, I would say this is so elementary that it will likely be understood by most (and has been thus far by anyone I have had this discussion with who has no prior education in philosophy). However, it would simply demonstrate my point that you don't understand philosophy and so shouldn't be assessing its value or capabilities.

Yet I destroyed your whole argument by pointing out that not all enjoy bananas and so you cannot demonstrate philosophically that bananas taste good. Pretty amazing for something doesn’t understand. I have the advantage of studying science,

I have already explained the fallacy in this response. The argument is that human enjoyment is a creation of God and bananas were created enjoyable. This is why bananas taste good.

When humans insist they don’t like them and they do not generate a pleasant taste, which is true, you are wrong. Science defeats philosophy that is divorced from the truth of testing.

You can not argue this point without contending against its two actual premises: 1. God created humans and their capacity for enjoyment; 2. Bananas were created enjoyable.

They are not enjoyable to quite a few people. Your assumption is wrong.

You are not defeating that point by designating the possibility they will not be enjoyed as it is not a premise.

They ARE not enjoyed by all and these can easily ask God why he made a fruit that has such an unpleasant and unenjoyable taste. This is a fact. Many find bananas have an unpleasant taste. You are simply assuming facts intrue.

And this is just weird and out of place. I suppose it was purposed for ad hominem as it doesn't logically connect with anything you were able to soundly demonstrate. Also, it is funny to note that the scientific method is based on philosophy (I pray you know this).

Men all have a philosophy of life, known or unknown to them. That means men of science also have a philosophy. The rapid advancement in science centuries ago was due to the Christian world view, their philosophy.

!
It doesn't tell you that. You tell yourself that since this "insult" as you call it serves as a description of your quality of argument as demonstrated. When something that potentially offends can be demonstrated and is relevant to the argument, it is not fallaciously ad hominem.

Interesting....,being insulting to others has to be sufficiently “demonstrated” for you which gives you license to insult others. The truth is the party insulted in the judge, not you,

Ad hominem is when an insult replaces an argument, not when insult is perceived in the prelude to an argument as relevant to it (about your ignorance of philosophy).

As i saw previously, YOU decide when you’ve insulted others not the aggrieved party. This is the license to insult at will because for you, the other is merely perceiving an insult no matter what you say. Two different measures.

This part was humourous, but very disappointing. Its disappointing because it is so obviously wrong I am convinced you are simply trying to save face with your exposed misgivings. This is a fluid, deductive argument. All the premises plainly follow from eachother. God created all things (1), therefore God also created that which enjoys and what can be enjoyed (2). The fact that you think those aren't connected (God created all things, therefore also these things), and that point 3 doesn't follow (God created an enjoyable thing with the capacity to be enjoyed, doubly clarified in advance) is simply baffling. I am actually stunned by the absurdity of that statement.



I've clarified this erroneous understanding in my previous post and many times in this one.

You lack of perception of your posts and mine is too much work.
I wish you well.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

Yet I destroyed your whole argument by pointing out that not all enjoy bananas and so you cannot demonstrate philosophically that bananas taste good. Pretty amazing for something doesn’t understand. I have the advantage of studying science,
When humans insist they don’t like them and they do not generate a pleasant taste, which is true, you are wrong. Science defeats philosophy that is divorced from the truth of testing.

They are not enjoyable to quite a few people. Your assumption is wrong.
They ARE not enjoyed by all and these can easily ask God why he made a fruit that has such an unpleasant and unenjoyable taste. This is a fact. Many find bananas have an unpleasant taste. You are simply assuming facts intrue.
Men all have a philosophy of life, known or unknown to them. That means men of science also have a philosophy. The rapid advancement in science centuries ago was due to the Christian world view, their philosophy.
Interesting....,being insulting to others has to be sufficiently “demonstrated” for you which gives you license to insult others. The truth is the party insulted in the judge, not you,
As i saw previously, YOU decide when you’ve insulted others not the aggrieved party. This is the license to insult at will because for you, the other is merely perceiving an insult no matter what you say. Two different measures.

You lack of perception of your posts and mine is too much work.
I wish you well.

I defeated all of these objections in my previous post. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are repeating the same defeated arguments in a desperate attempt to hold on to your pride. Pride, no less, that doesn't even have a basis at least to be remotely understandable as to why you possess it.

The possibility of non-enjoyment does not defeat the argument since the argument is about capacity, not universality. You severely err in your attempt to display your apprehension of the subject or this elementary example presented in this context, since the simplicity of this point is almost without potential to be simplified further. All the points are logically connected and proceed from one another fluently and conspicuously. The fact that you continue to repeat the possibility of the fruit not being enjoyed as a "counter-argument" shows you lack elementary philosophical understanding and would be wise to stay silent on the matter since you are not even an initiate in its use.

I don't believe you think you are correct. I am more convinced at this point you want to believe you are right for underlying motives, as your arguments are too poor for it to be likely you genuinely believe your position is worthy of example or integration into one's practice of the discipline.

 

[The Gryphon]

I can only go by what I in my 68 years of life have seen and learned. While I have seen the extreme cruelty man can visit upon his fellow man I have also seen and experienced miracles from G_d! I know they were miracles because they defied the laws of physics and reality as we understand it in some cases. I do not claim to understand G_d's ways as I certainly do not. I can only fall to my knees and thank Him for His Mercy so underserved by me! Graceless? Oh, I understand as I watch this world around me and at times cry out to my Lord come quickly oh Lord and end this retched world and rule over it with your rod of iron as it says in Scripture you will do. Scriptures say just as it was in the days of Lot so it will be in the last days. Read for yourself how those days were and they were BAD!