Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Squagnut said: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?"
nemesiss said:Squagnut said: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 said:nemesiss said: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.
Okay, so you agree with me that good acts should not just benefit the individual but actually show some consideration for a wider circle.Durakken said: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.Aught3 said:I disagree with your definition, good is more like what is beneficial to all.
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.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.
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.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.
Durakken said: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.
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.Aught3 said: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.
Durakken said: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 said: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.
General tips:-
Be civil and polite to other users, even when you really disagree with them! Mutual respect is important.
Gavin_Farewell said:This argument is semantic, really.
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.Durakken said: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 said: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.Durakken said: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.
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.
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.Durakken said:Define all-good cuz I have no idea what you are talking about.
This is the false. We have two statements:Durakken said: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.
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.Durakken said: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 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.Durakken said: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 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 said:especially when it is apparent we don't [have a code of good] as what we consider good and evil changes over time.
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.Durakken said: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.
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.Durakken said:I think the points are argued out and we just having an understanding problem and there is nothing i can do to help that.