Why God allows pain...

[Durakken]

Sorry, I forgot you're not capable of using your brain.

I'm not going to explain myself a billion times when I know you're not going to listen to anything said.

 

[nemesiss]

Very interesting. Now would you like to have a go at answering my question, which was "If a god is omnipotent, how can anybody do anything that will benefit that god?"

its called stroking someone's ego, and if the bible is accurate on anything... its that YHWH is an attention whore with a huge ego that needs constant stroking.

 

[Squagnut]

Very interesting. Now would you like to have a go at answering my question, which was "If a god is omnipotent, how can anybody do anything that will benefit that god?"

its called stroking someone's ego, and if the bible is accurate on anything... its that YHWH is an attention whore with a huge ego that needs constant stroking.

I'm not sure about that. If I were omnipotent and I wanted people to tell me how groovy I am, I'd make damn sure nobody had any doubt at all that I exist.

 

[nemesiss]

its called stroking someone's ego, and if the bible is accurate on anything... its that YHWH is an attention whore with a huge ego that needs constant stroking.

I'm not sure about that. If I were omnipotent and I wanted people to tell me how groovy I am, I'd make damn sure nobody had any doubt at all that I exist.

existance doesn't quanitfy groovy-ness
God is a rodeo-clown, a great distraction from the real attraction; REALITY

 

[Aught3]

I disagree with your definition, good is more like what is beneficial to all.

Doing only things that benefit one's self benefits society because society benefits the individual. Likewise doing things that benefit a god would be most beneficial as it means the entire universe benefits as the universe to god is an imagined reality.

Okay, so you agree with me that good acts should not just benefit the individual but actually show some consideration for a wider circle.

The problem you are going to keep having is that you haven't adequately defined your words and you keep on using words that do not mean what you think they mean.

What do you mean by "benefit all" ... everything in reality is part of a god and therefor whatever is beneficial to a god is beneficial to all reality.

Most people understand what words mean, that is why we can communicate. I appreciate the need to define some words that may be used in multiple ways. It was probably sensible to find a definition for 'good' but constantly asking for clarification gets annoying.

Beneficial to all with sapience and possibly all with sentience in some considerations. The Abrahamic view is that God created reality, not the pantheist understanding that God is the universe. I think I've been clear that I'm addressing God/Allah with this argument.

This is the whole reason it fails unless you can argue absolute good without basing it on a god.

if a god exists...
#1 Relative good means that the argument is out right stupid and has no merit, but also means that absolute good based on god would be in effect.
#2 Absolute good based on a god means that no matter what happens in our reality and how we might view it whatever a god says is good is good.
#3 Absolute good not based on a god means that there is an ultimate code of what's good and whats bad.

Now if you argue #3 you must also argue what this code of good says about imagined beings. In other words to defeat #3 you must say that thinking anything harmful is evil, and just as evil as doing those harmful things.

If you're not willing to argue both of those points (#3 and that there are thought crimes) and make a good argument for both of them then the PoE/S fails.

Considering imaginary beings is unimportant because we make the assumption that god exists at the start. The whole point of a reductio is to make the initial assumption and see where it leads.If you start the viewpoint that god is imaginary I don't need to go any further. I've already explained why the notion of a good based on the actions of god is problematic. All it does is redefines evil as 'good' and then says that god does 'good' (evil) which is my whole point. My understanding of what is good has been spelled out: what is morally right and beneficial in promoting well-being and reducing suffering to all. I do think that an objective morality exists, so this is not a relative position.

 

[Gnug215]

Sorry, I forgot you're not capable of using your brain.

I'm not going to explain myself a billion times when I know you're not going to listen to anything said.

Could we please lay off the insults?

Thanks.

 

[Durakken]

The problem you are going to keep having is that you haven't adequately defined your words and you keep on using words that do not mean what you think they mean.

What do you mean by "benefit all" ... everything in reality is part of a god and therefor whatever is beneficial to a god is beneficial to all reality.

Most people understand what words mean, that is why we can communicate. I appreciate the need to define some words that may be used in multiple ways. It was probably sensible to find a definition for 'good' but constantly asking for clarification gets annoying.

Beneficial to all with sapience and possibly all with sentience in some considerations. The Abrahamic view is that God created reality, not the pantheist understanding that God is the universe. I think I've been clear that I'm addressing God/Allah with this argument.

Considering imaginary beings is unimportant because we make the assumption that god exists at the start. The whole point of a reductio is to make the initial assumption and see where it leads.If you start the viewpoint that god is imaginary I don't need to go any further. I've already explained why the notion of a good based on the actions of god is problematic. All it does is redefines evil as 'good' and then says that god does 'good' (evil) which is my whole point. My understanding of what is good has been spelled out: what is morally right and beneficial in promoting well-being and reducing suffering to all. I do think that an objective morality exists, so this is not a relative position.[/quote]

You have completely misunderstood what I said. i will try to explain again at another point, but not right now. I just felt that it'd be better to respond than not at the moment.


Gnug, as far as "lay off the insult" I'm not getting into an argument that openly displays his ignorance and trolling. I find his post insulting, but I don't see you "correcting" him. So if you want me to not insult him, make him stop being a troll.

 

[Squagnut]

Gnug, as far as "lay off the insult" I'm not getting into an argument that openly displays his ignorance and trolling. I find his post insulting, but I don't see you "correcting" him. So if you want me to not insult him, make him stop being a troll.

Durakken, perhaps nobody corrected me because I don't need to be corrected. If I ask a question based on an assertion you make and then I find your response to be unsatisfactory, that doesn't make me a troll. Perhaps your definition of "troll" is "someone who disagrees with Durakken". If so, so be it, but I doubt anyone else will concur. Apparently, you have yet to learn that adults can be astonishingly difficult to impress, and next to impossible to offend with those hurtful pixels.

Now, if you rewind a little and look at the question I asked and your response to it, you'll see that you didn't answer my question. My question asked how anyone could do anything that would benefit an omnipotent being. You pointed out that you find it amusing that people leave out all sorts of things from their description of god (you assumed that I was talking about god, when I asked about an omnipotent being. I have no description of god because I don't know anything at all about god), and then went on to say something about people being clueless when they make "such an argument" (I didn't make an argument - I asked a question), before drivelling on about you re-watching movies and god having fun exploring the universe or something.

Now, would you like to have a proper go at answering the question I asked? If you prefer to treat me like an idiot or just to pretend that the question I asked doesn't exist, that's fine by me.

 

[Andiferous]

While we're being honest here, I'm kind of disappointed no one took me up on my alternate ending.

 

[Gnug215]

Gnug, as far as "lay off the insult" I'm not getting into an argument that openly displays his ignorance and trolling. I find his post insulting, but I don't see you "correcting" him. So if you want me to not insult him, make him stop being a troll.

From the rules:

General tips:-

Be civil and polite to other users, even when you really disagree with them! Mutual respect is important.

I'm going to assume that it was due to this that I received a complaint about your post. It had a direct insult in it, and we don't want that in here.

I didn't see any insults in his post, so the fact that you find his post insulting seems to be your very own doing.

If you feel he's trolling you, then point it out to him or ignore him. Direct insults like that serve no constructive purpose whatsoever.

I am sure you are aware of the consequences if you persist with such insults. It's up to you.

 

[Whateverman]

This argument is semantic, really.

Quite. The original story here should have used an all loving, all knowing & all powerful barber. If such a barber did actually exist, there would in fact be no people with unkempt hair.

 

[Durakken]

Good... It's either relative or absolute. Right?

If relative then nothing is technically good or evil, just actions we perceive to be one or the other from our relative positions.

If absolute then a god could be evil. However, to make a god evil, due to it's perspective, one would have to argue that any being that imagines any other being being harmed is also evil.

So if relative, god's not evil, if absolute god can be, but only if everyone is.

Absolute good brings 2 problems with it when talking about the PoE. #1. Noone has ever, as far as I know, successfully argued that there is an absolute good/evil and #2. Even dismissing that you have to include that within the definition of good/evil it is that imagining harm is evil. Which is absurd.

So the PoE is rendered absurd and/or wrong.

 

[Aught3]

Good... It's either relative or absolute. Right?

If relative then nothing is technically good or evil, just actions we perceive to be one or the other from our relative positions.

If absolute then a god could be evil. However, to make a god evil, due to it's perspective, one would have to argue that any being that imagines any other being being harmed is also evil.

So if relative, god's not evil, if absolute god can be, but only if everyone is.

Absolute good brings 2 problems with it when talking about the PoE. #1. Noone has ever, as far as I know, successfully argued that there is an absolute good/evil and #2. Even dismissing that you have to include that within the definition of good/evil it is that imagining harm is evil. Which is absurd.

So the PoE is rendered absurd and/or wrong.

The way I see it there are three possible scenarios that you are presenting here, but each one leads to the conclusion that God is not all-good.

1) Good is completely relative and subjective meaning there is nothing that we can say is objectively good. Therefore, God cannot be all-good. QED.
2) Good, from God's perspective, is actually not-good from a human perspective. In some perspectives God inflicts unnecessary suffering. Therefore, God is not all-good. QED.
3) There is an absolute or objective standard of good, which God (assuming he exists) has clearly violated. Therefore, God is not all-good. QED.

At no point is it necessary to defend the claim that imagining harm is evil, only the supposed actions and omissions of God are considered.

 

[Durakken]

Good... It's either relative or absolute. Right?

If relative then nothing is technically good or evil, just actions we perceive to be one or the other from our relative positions.

If absolute then a god could be evil. However, to make a god evil, due to it's perspective, one would have to argue that any being that imagines any other being being harmed is also evil.

So if relative, god's not evil, if absolute god can be, but only if everyone is.

Absolute good brings 2 problems with it when talking about the PoE. #1. Noone has ever, as far as I know, successfully argued that there is an absolute good/evil and #2. Even dismissing that you have to include that within the definition of good/evil it is that imagining harm is evil. Which is absurd.

So the PoE is rendered absurd and/or wrong.

The way I see it there are three possible scenarios that you are presenting here, but each one leads to the conclusion that God is not all-good.

1) Good is completely relative and subjective meaning there is nothing that we can say is objectively good. Therefore, God cannot be all-good. QED.
2) Good, from God's perspective, is actually not-good from a human perspective. In some perspectives God inflicts unnecessary suffering. Therefore, God is not all-good. QED.
3) There is an absolute or objective standard of good, which God (assuming he exists) has clearly violated. Therefore, God is not all-good. QED.

At no point is it necessary to defend the claim that imagining harm is evil, only the supposed actions and omissions of God are considered.

Define all-good cuz I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you mean good that is good from every possible angle then you are talking about absolute good. You cannot apply it to relative good by definition.
And your 3 commits a fallacy, which is your argument for absolute good, which is that there is an objective model of good that humans would have better defined than a god.

You're 3 is akin to saying. Aliens are attacking earth. Humans see this as bad. Because humans see it as bad, even though they lack the broader perspective that an alien civilization would likely have humans are right, that the destruction of humanity is bad. It's like saying a speck of dust is right about its beliefs about good an evil no matter what a human says so no matter what the human does the human is always evil.

So even if there is this code of good and evil out there, it is pretty much impossible that humans would have more knowledge of it than a god, especially when it is apparent we don't as what we consider good and evil changes over time.

 

[Aught3]

Define all-good cuz I have no idea what you are talking about.

My understanding of what is good has been spelled out: what is morally right and beneficial in promoting well-being and reducing suffering to all sapient beings. Roughly the equivalent of omnibenevolence.

If you mean good that is good from every possible angle then you are talking about absolute good. You cannot apply it to relative good by definition.

This is the false. We have two statements:
1) This action, judged by an objective standard, is good.
2) Everyone believes that this action is good.
I'm saying the second and you are trying to equate it to the first. It's possible to have an act that everyone judges as good, yet this does not make the act good from an objective standpoint.

And your 3 commits a fallacy, which is your argument for absolute good, which is that there is an objective model of good that humans would have better defined than a god.

Not at all. God would have to know what the standard of good is otherwise it would be hard to blame him for violating it, he is supposed to be omniscient. The standard is set when God is defined as omnibenevolent, we then see him breaking the standard which reveals the contradiction. Redefining God's standard of good as the equivalent of evil does not help because this argument is based on a human understanding of God's nature.

You're 3 is akin to saying. Aliens are attacking earth. Humans see this as bad. Because humans see it as bad, even though they lack the broader perspective that an alien civilization would likely have humans are right, that the destruction of humanity is bad.

You were fine up to this point. The speck of dust is irrelevant (see the definition of good above). The destruction of human society and killing of all life on Earth would be bad (possibly the aliens would have an excellent reason but I can't think of any off the top of my head). If my argument is akin to saying the destruction of humanity is bad, I think I'm probably on the right track.

especially when it is apparent we don't [have a code of good] as what we consider good and evil changes over time.

It certainly changes over time but this fact does not automatically make good subjective. What we consider to be science also changes over time, but it is still reasonable to say that science is objective in nature. In both cases it is the available information that changes. Some things were right, some things were wrong, and the truth is approached asymptotically. Besides, do you really think that in the future we will define good as the infliction of gratuitous, unsolicited harm on otheres? Because that is what god allows, promotes, and participates in right now. However, this is fairly unimportant as the same standard of good is used both to define God as omnibenevolent and then to judge God as not living up to that label.

 

[Durakken]

Ok let's say there is a business.
Your boss does all this stuff that you think is bad.
You have no place else to work and you need to work.
These things keep the boss from closing the business.
Those actions whether you think they are bad or not, keeps you and everyone else working.

Are those actions actually bad? The answer is no.


That's not a good analogy... >.> I think the points are argued out and we just having an understanding problem and there is nothing i can do to help that.

 

[Aught3]

Ok let's say there is a business.
Your boss does all this stuff that you think is bad.
You have no place else to work and you need to work.
These things keep the boss from closing the business.
Those actions whether you think they are bad or not, keeps you and everyone else working.

Are those actions actually bad? The answer is no.

To make this example more concrete, let's say that in order to stay in business your boss lies on his tax forms and cheats the government out of money.

Are these actions actually bad? Yes they are, especially if we replace the human boss with a divine boss who is supposed to be all powerful. The fact that he does not find another way to save the business and continues to cheat on his taxes is made even worse.

I think the points are argued out and we just having an understanding problem and there is nothing i can do to help that.

Yeah, basically you are saying that if God does evil, it is good. I'm saying if God does evil, it's still evil - no matter how you try to spin it.