Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by JAG*, May 25, 2020.

  1. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Early Christianity was a religion of mysteries. Only the initiates received all the knowledge, not the masses of believers (Paul, who believed in the second coming during his lifetime, wanted the secrets to be revealed so that more people could be saved). Furthermore, there were several Christian sects, some of them Gnostic, some who totally rejected Judaism, some who rejected Jesus' divinity, some who didn't believe Jesus was crucified by men.

    The passage you quoted seems Gnostic to me, but I could be wrong. Reminds me of the Gnostic story of Jesus the god who made himself human (poor), in order to descend into our world undetected by evil deities (of which the Demiurge was one) and show humans how to save their souls (immortal in a perfect world = rich).

    The above it's guesswork, of course, based on my rather limited knowledge. Just a sample of how a canonical text can tell us a totally different story if we look at the wider context in which it had been written.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
    Cosmo likes this.
  2. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
    7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
    8 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
    even death on a cross!


    Good thing new testament writers were overt in their proclamations in regarding the divinity of Jesus.
     
  3. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,628
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Pisa, I don't know if you wrote that up there to me or to Robert E. Allen.

    You quoted Robert E. Allen, but what you wrote seems to me, to be your
    comments on what I have previously written to you, for example
    your point about:

    {1} "I can't argue with you about your faith"
    and
    {2} You quoting Acts 2:23 {which I called to your attention}
    "This man was handed over to you by God's deliberate plan and
    foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him
    to death by nailing him to the cross."

    'Course, I guess your comments could be applicable to
    both Robert and JAG?

    But you can and do argue against faith beliefs being allowed to have
    a prominent place in the Public Square, right?

    I understand you to be saying that religious texts have had a huge
    impact on the lives of non-Christians and still do today and you are
    therefore "entitled" to argue about the "veracity" of the interpretation
    of religious texts and the events that produces out there in Real World

    Real World as juxtaposed with Keyboard World . . .

    . . . also known as Thread World -- two phrases I coined to emphasize
    the very-little-actual- political-impact of "pecking away" on keyboards
    here inside Keyboard World and Thread World.

    Back to Faith Beliefs and their impact in the Public Square . . .

    My view: There is a very-small-tiny ideological war going on between
    atheists-Secular Humanists and Christians on the Internet here inside
    wispy highly ephemeral Thread World. More about that down-post in a
    minute.

    "if not for the claim"__Pisa
    My view is you're saying you have no interest in the Christian Faith, all you
    want to accomplish is to do your part to prevent Christendom from having
    a major impact on politics in the Public Square. My response: You will be
    vividly disappointed because Christendom will eventually conquer the
    world peacefully. The Bible is specifically clear about that and emphatic.

    I know. You don't believe the Bible. Your unbelief will not prevent the
    eventual Christianization of the world.

    My response to that . . .
    And this is my view:
    "We have to keep Theism out of the Public Square."__The New Atheists
    It was Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher
    Hitchens that put that idea out there -- the idea that atheism-Secular Humanism
    needed to STOP Theism from having any significant impact on public policy.

    My view is they will fail to achieve their goal: Some 5.7 billion Theists are NOT
    going to be stopped from having a HUGE impact on Public Policy world-wide.

    _________________
    Start quote.
    "Theism worldwide is very strong and very healthy.
    2.8 billion Muslims plus 2.9 billion Christians by 2050.
    That comes out to 5.7 billion Theists by 2050?
    And that's not counting the Jews.
    5.7 billion Theists is going to be a lot of Theists by 2050"
    In the section By Country, here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...wth#By_country
    End quote.
    ___________________

    The coming 5.7 billion Theists and Europe . .

    Back to the growth of Theism worldwide: The Islamification of Europe is
    certain to be realized.

    Why ?

    Because Demography Is Destiny . . .
    And . .
    The Future Belongs To The Fertile.

    The native indigenous populations of Europe have very low fertility rates.

    It requires a 2.1 Fertility Rate just to "break even" with the Death Rate.

    That means that every woman of child-bearing age in Europe must have
    at least 2.1 children just to break even with the Death Rate.
    {the .1 in 2.1 is to compensate for the women who cannot have children}

    Every nation in Europe, except I think Muslim Albania, has Fertility Rates
    so low {some only 1.3 } that they can NOT . . .even possibly survive as
    their original native indigenous country.

    But this is NOT true of Islam inside Europe.

    The Muslims inside Europe have very high Fertility rates and their
    leaders have already correctly predicted that Islam will first conquer
    Europe demographically then they will conquer Europe democratically
    via the one-man gets one-vote political elections policy of Europe.

    Think about that.

    First Islam conquers Europe demographically . . .
    Then Islam conquers Europe democratically.

    What can possibly stop that? Answer: Nothing can stop it.

    The Secular Humanists forgot the demographic problem with
    regard to their ideological "battle plans" against Theism.

    How so?

    Because the "people of faith" are the ones that have a lot
    of children, The Secularists do NOT have a lot of children . .

    . . .and children are future voters.

    Secular Humanism is going to lose the battle for the political
    and ideological control of the world.

    Regarding Europe's way below-replacement of the dead Fertility
    Rates you can google around and pull up all the evidence you
    need to document it.
    I use the CIA World Fact Book mostly which is considered to be
    a serious and reliable source.
    Here is a web page that will give you some idea of just how low
    Europe's Fertility Rates are as of 2018
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_regions_by_fertility_rate
    {This source is not of the same authority as the CIA World Fact Book
    but the CIA World Fact Book also gives the same low Fertility Rates
    for the nations of Europe.}

    Demography is destiny {in all democratic nations}
    Therefore the future belongs to the fertile {in all democratic nations}
    The future of Europe is Theism,
    The future of Europe is Islam.

    `
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
  4. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,628
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Swensson, if you got a moment, take a look at my post # 203
    written to Pisa just above --- especially the section that treats
    of the certain coming Islamification of Europe --- and give me
    any thoughts you have on that.

    Four Your Information:
    Various spellings are:
    Islamification
    Islamicization
    Islamisation
    Islamization
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
  5. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,628
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Pisa, I read all that carefully and I looked for at least one or two
    points where we could have some "common ground" so that I
    could write a reply to you that would be of interest to you -- but
    alas I couldn't find one.

    Nevertheless to perhaps keep the chat going, what are your
    thoughts on the following miscellaneous items:

    {1} Can you list 2 teachings within Christianity that you admire?

    {2} Do you believe you will cease to exist when you die?
    If yes, does that make you sad?

    {3} Do your wish that John 3:16's eternal life could be empirically
    demonstrated to be true at the certainty-level of 4 + 4 = 8 --
    or demonstrated true with a very high level of Probability?

    {4} If it could, would you become a Christian?

    {5} Would you like to comment on the following?

    William Paley presented the Teleological Argument
    by comparing the Universe to a working {Rolex} Watch found,
    say, in the middle of the Sahara Desert.

    So?

    So you'd be compelled to conclude: Intelligent Design.
    The Rolex Watch could not possibly have created itself.

    Richard Dawkins attempted to answer Paley by comparing
    the evolution of the human eye to Paley's {Rolex} Watch,
    and wrote The Blind Watchmaker --- I understand Dawkins'
    point to be that blind evolutionary processes produced the
    human eye that was just as complex as was the {Rolex}
    Watch. So? So no Intelligent Design.

    Some Christian apologist objected to Dawkins' claim
    and spoke of the "Blind Watchmaker Watchmaker"
    which point was that Dawkins had merely substituted
    his "highly complex human eye" for Paley's "highly
    complex {Rolex} Watch" and therefore we are "right
    back " to Paley's "highly complex {Rolex} Watch"
    and therefore right back to Intelligent Design.

    Pisa, please feel free to not respond to anything up
    there that is not interesting to you.

    ___________


    Thought For Today:
    Human history ends with Christendom being a HUGE
    diverse community --- so numerous as to be uncountable
    by men,

    "After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude
    that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and
    language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.
    They were wearing white robes and were holding palm
    branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud
    voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the
    throne, and to the Lamb." Revelation 7:9-10


    `
     
  6. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    29,573
    Likes Received:
    13,225
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Going to reply since these apply to all atheists.

    The importance of agape and the golden rule, though these are simply "within" Christianity. They predate Christianity and, in fact, are contradicted elsewhere in Christian scriptures, so I see no reason to attribute them to Christianity.

    This is complex. In the A-theory of time, which is how we experience the world, then yes, I believe we cease to exist when we die. Yes, that does make me sad. It also, however, adds value to our lives by adding constraints. What reason would there be to act at all if time were not a limited resource?

    In the B-theory of time, which has more scientific backing but is less intuitive to our personal experience, the very concept of "ceasing to exist" is nonsensical. So I do find comfort in that, which helps with the sting of the previous statement.

    For reference:
    A-theory of time means that only the present exists. The past is behind us and the future is yet to come, but only the present is truly real.
    B-theory of time means that the past, present, and future are equally real and that the passage of time is mostly an illusion.

    No. There are very few ideas in the world more barbaric than the "orthodox" Christian idea of the afterlife, though I'll give credit to universalists Christians. That said, if the evidence pointed in that direction, what I wished to be true wouldn't matter.

    I can't make sense of this question. I base my opinions of reality on the evidence, not what I want to be true.

    Paley's argument is self-defeating. If I saw a Rolex on the beach, there's a reason I would be able to distinguish the design of the Rolex from the non-design of the beach, otherwise there would be nothing to notice. But if the teleological argument were true, I shouldn't be able to distinguish between the two. They'd equally show signs of design. Paley's argument depends on there being something remarkable about the watch, but if his conclusion were true there would be nothing remarkable about the watch.

    Dawkins gave a very good response by showing stages of development that natural selection could select for. I don't think you've read it. You should if you are going to comment on it.
     
    Pisa likes this.
  7. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,628
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I don't expect anything from atheists here inside Keyboard World.
    My view is that here inside Thread World we can share "points",
    or maybe "exchange points" is a better phrase. I don't think actual
    communication takes place between atheists and Christians here
    inside Thread World. My view is that what actually occurs here
    inside Keyboard World is what occurs when a person looks at a
    Jackson Pollock "painting."

    If you don't know who Jackson Pollock was, he was a painter who
    often laid his canvasses on the floor and splashed different colors
    of paint on them. Pollock's "paintings" sold for $ millions of
    dollars --- which is a commentary on the amazingly low-wisdom
    of present day humanity. {Compare the wisdom of what is now
    taking place in the streets of many cities in America where they
    are burning cars and buildings and looting as their preferred
    method of communicating with each other.}

    Back to Pollock . . .

    You stand in front of a Jackson Pollock "painting" and you see a
    conglomeration of various colors of paint smeared on the canvass
    as if a 4 year old child had been playing with open paint cans.

    So, on my lights, how is Thread World like a Jackson Pollock
    "painting"? Answer: People who look at a Jackson Pollock
    "painting" see what they want to see -- just as people who
    read posts inside Thread World see what they want to see.

    "Each man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards
    the rest" said Bob Dylan. That describes what goes on
    inside Thread Word perfectly. Are there any exceptions?
    Yes, some, but not a lot.

    People standing in front of a Jackson Pollock "painting"
    see different things. Tom sees Democracy. Henry sees
    Existentialism. Fred sees Mother's Apple Pie. Rodney
    sees Fideism. Marvin sees Chicago At Rush Hour.
    Billy sees the Moon Landing. Phillip sees Gobbledygook.

    Harry sees Illogical Processes. Harold sees Logical
    Processes. William sees Cannibalism. Richard sees
    Sherwin-Williams. JAG sees the Brooklyn Bridge Being
    Sold To A Man "For Whatever Ya Got In Your Pocket
    Right Now."

    _______________

    Bible Verse For Today:

    "The secret things belong to the LORD our God,
    but the things revealed belong to us and to our
    children forever, that we may follow all the words
    of this law."___Deuteronomy 29:29


    `
     
  8. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Moral values are, me thinks, emergent properties of social systems, as are all relationships inside any social system. Not mere opinions, then, but definitely not objective.

    Murder for money-gain is immoral in most contexts because it creates relationships based on fear, mistrust, instability, and hatred. Not the best relationships for a healthy happy community, I'd say.
     
  9. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Both Robert and JAG, yes.

    I argue against dictatorship, be it religious or secular. Not one religion, not one ideology, should be allowed to rise above others and force itself on those who think otherwise.

    I beg to differ. Blogs and social platforms have a huge impact in what you call "Real World". The world wide web is the richest source of information ever, readily available.

    There are more varieties of atheists than you imagine. Not all of us are at war with Christianity.

    Some of us would like to see a better, improved version. You might not be aware of the appalling extremism of certain denominations, like Eastern Orthodoxy. Never felt such hatred pouring from adherents of the most loving god as in debates with Eastern Orthodox. I don't want that on the public square.

    As long as the conquest is left to God, I don't have a problem with it.

    I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow. Sleep time again.
     
  10. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,628
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Agreed.
    No force. Force bad. Very bad. Bad!
    I doubt you're interested in Christian Postmillennialism which is the bright,
    cheerful, optimistic view of Christian Eschatology, however regarding the idea
    of "force bad, very bad, very evil" my view is that Christianity conquers the
    world peacefully, with NEVER any use of any kind of force --- none whatsoever.

    Regarding Postmillennialism's peaceful conquest of the world . . .

    "Postmillennialism holds that the Lord Jesus Christ established His kingdom on
    earth through His preaching and redemptive work in the first century and that
    He equips His church with the gospel, empowers her by the Holy Spirit, and
    charges her with the Great Commission to disciple all nations. Postmillennialism
    expects that eventually the vast majority of men living will be saved. Increasing
    gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ's return in
    which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of men
    and nations. After an extensive era of such conditions the Lord will return visibly,
    bodily, and gloriously, to end history with the general resurrection and the final
    Judgment after which the eternal order follows."___ Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry.

    Agreed.
    I failed to make myself clear.
    I was not talking about the Internet itself, rather only about the more unpleasant
    aspects of some of the social platforms.

    Agreed.

    Me too.

    I do not doubt that.
    I am aware that there is very extreme and very ugly stuff coming from some
    swaths of Christianity. This will change in the coming millenniums.

    You may be surprised to know that I quite often receive better treatment from
    some atheists that I receive from some Christians. Unfortunately there are
    MANY Christians, who will, if you disagree with them, "put you in Hell" -- I mean
    they will tell you "straight out" that "you are not a true Christian" if you do not agree
    with THEM on non-creedal issues like eg. the Death Penalty. I had a fellow Christian
    tell me recently that "you HATE innocent victims of crime" because I prefer that the
    state NOT kill criminals --- but rather give them prison sentences which gives
    them time to change and repent and come to know the Lord Jesus as their Savior.
    JAG's thread Do You Support Capital Punishment?
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-punishment-death-for-certain-crimes.572832/

    Subtle? /grin
    That 'cause you don't believe God exist?

    Looking forward to it.
    Sleep well.
     
  11. JAG*

    JAG* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,628
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    83
    JAG Wrote:
    "So if God is Omnipotent and CONTROLS and CAUSES . . .ALL . . things,
    therefore all the hundreds of millions of acts of kindness that occur worldwide
    every year are caused by God --- and everything else that is a good thing.
    `
    I ask these God-Causes-All-Things Atheists to join me in listing the good
    things God causes, along with the bad things they say He causes.
    `
    God either causes all things, or He does not cause all things.
    `
    If He causes all things, then God:
    `
    ■ caused Polio to be cured.

    ■ caused all the love in the world

    ■ caused all the kindness in the world

    ■ caused all the empathy in the world

    ■ caused all the sympathy in the world

    ■ caused all the hospitals in the world to be built

    ■ caused all the charities in the world to come to exist

    ■ caused all the homes of people to be built

    ■ caused the Center For Disease Control to come to exist

    ■ caused the World Health Organization to come to exist

    ■ caused all the Super Walmart Stores and Sam's Clubs to come to exist

    ■ and caused every single thing that is a good thing, to come to exist"___JAG
    End quote.

    Swensson Replies:
    Then I am satisfied. I am glad to have just one (1) atheist agree with that.
    You say to the best of your knowledge "many" of the atheists in question
    would agree with that. I think you believe that Fry would agree with it.

    So?

    I am 100% content with that. You know if I'd be glad and happy with just
    one {1} atheist agreeing --- I'd be over-joyed with "many" atheists agreeing.

    I look forward to seeing "many" atheists posting about some of the good things
    the God-That-Does-Not-Exist does in the world. Let me know when you
    see that in several posts. Please link me to the posts. It would be something
    like this: The God of the Bible --- the God-That-Does-Not-Exist -- is presented
    in the Bible as being Omnipotent {all powerful} and is therefore responsible for
    all the evil in the world like putting bone cancer in children --- and He therefore
    is also responsible for all the good things in the world like causing all the charities
    in the world to come to exist and all the Super Walmart's and Sam's Clubs to come
    to exist, and all the hospitals to be built and come to exist.




    `
     
  12. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,499
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You don’t know that. Either way, even if that’s the case, then the ideas of atheism will too wither away, probably far before those pertaining to God do.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
  13. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    104,861
    Likes Received:
    37,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes, Atheist religions will fade with time too, but every time a person is born, a new Atheist is born - that will be true until the end of time
     
  14. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,499
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    People are not born with a fixed idea that there is no Absolute Truth.
     
  15. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    104,861
    Likes Received:
    37,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True....

    people are born without the brainwashing of their parents religion\beliefs
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
  16. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,689
    Likes Received:
    772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hello everyone! I apologise for bringing up old quotes, and maybe taking one or two of them out of context, but I'm hoping that a few of you will be able to comment on something for me. You have all presented the argument from evil or something similar. This thread is specifically about God being evil if he exists (rather than concluding that a good god doesn't exist), so for a few of you, I'm hoping that you'll consider a slightly different angle than what I've actually quoted you saying.

    Anyway, to the question.
    When you argue that God is evil (if he exists), do you argue that there aren't any good things that God have done, or do you argue that God has done good things (and you could list a few if you saw a reason to) but that God's evil acts (or lack of action) make God evil (or at least not omnibenevolent) regardless of other good things he may have done?

    Again, I apologise for sometimes adding a bit of interpretation to some of your quotes, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I wanted to ask a number of people.
     
  17. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    3,041
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why though? When I agreed with you that an omnipotent god would be responsible for all the good things as well as all the bad, you immediately tried to twist it around and claim that such a god wouldn't actually be responsible for any of the bad things. Maybe more people would address your points if you were honest about them (and, as an aside, a little more concise too ;) )
     
  18. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    3,041
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure it's a simple idea of god being good or evil - part of the issue is that very little (if anything, arguably) is simply good or evil. It should be clear that something deemed omnibenevolent can't do anything considered even slightly bad or evil.

    I'd suggest the root problem here is the anthropomorphism of God here and particularly the inconsistent application of it. So much of the Christian (and some other monotheistic) teaching presents God as a person, thinking, planing, wanting and, sometimes, failing (at least short term). I find that entirely inconsistent with the idea of God as the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator being he is also often presented with, often as a direct counter to the inevitable flaws and failings of the anthropomorphised version. I'd see the creator being as being an abstract concept so far beyond our mortal existence as to be literally impossible for us to define or fully understand, and again, this is a line sometimes taken by believers when it suits them, even in this very debate. The problem is that they will then immediately go on to describe the characteristics, actions and motives of that God in great detail.

    I don't think you can have it both ways. Either God is the all-powerful abstract being we can never really understand or God is the grounded, thinking and rational being, with all the imperfections which inevitably come with that. The whole good or evil debate is merely a consequence of that core dichotomy.
     
  19. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Why the automatic assumption that all descendants of all theists will remain theists?

    I don't know how many Muslims, if any, you've met. Unlike Islamist leaders, they're not interested in conquering Europe. They're more interested in shaping comfortable lives for themselves by exploiting opportunities offered by advanced societies. Younger generations are more likely to adopt the western lifestyle, investing more in careers and quality leisure time than child-rearing.

    A few years back, five Muslim members of the British Parliament have voted in favor of gay marriages. Not exactly the way to European Sharia, I'd say.

    Muslims are not an homogeneous entity. There's no way to predict with accuracy what their descendants will do in Europe in the coming decades.

    Once upon a time, the Roman Empire stretched from the western boundaries of the known world deep into Asia, and from Central Europe to North Africa. Why are you not bowing to Jupiter today?
     
  20. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,689
    Likes Received:
    772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So am I right in saying that since a omnibenevolent God cannot do anything evil, any evil act of God shows God as not omnibenevolent (or at least is a meaningful start to a discussion), whereas listing good things that God has done is meaningless, since it doesn't show that God is or isn't omnibenevolent?

    And if so, am I right in saying that it is reasonable that in a discussion about God's existence based on the argument from evil (if we accept it) someone brings up examples of God doing evil, whereas examples of God being good is at best beside the point and at worst a deliberate red herring?
     
  21. Etbauer

    Etbauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    4,683
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's a few things here. In general, however, yes, the "omnibenevolence" is pretty much the root of it. That being said-

    If a god is omnipotent, then everything good is it's fault as much as everything bad. If the bad outweighs the good by any amount, then it is a bad thing. If a 'hell' exists, then it is an infinitely bad or 'evil' thing.

    However, if omnipotent, then it has no limits, and no restrictions (which leads to all kinds of other problems, but this is the one we are focusing on). That means that nothing is necessary. Therefore, anything that isn't perfect by any definition of the word means that it was made that way arbitrarily. Now, even the most evil human on the planet isn't fundamentally 'evil.' They are a product of some combination of nature/nurture. A god doesn't have this limitation, so any evil is fundamental to it's being.

    So, yes, you can give it all the credit for anything we consider good, however... There is no such thing as 'neutral.' As human beings or just plain animals, we have evolved to maintain a sort of homeostasis around a certain set of environmental conditions, and anything below that level tends to feel bad and anything above that level feels good (at least until that homeostasis is re-normalized.) However, we never experience the maximum amount of good (however you define that) that could possibly be experienced. Because there is no cost for any level of 'good' over any other, then you are really only talking about different levels of good being arbitrarily withheld.
     
  22. Etbauer

    Etbauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    4,683
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think this is essentially correct. However, I would say that this doesn't mean that a god doesn't exist, only that if one does, it is a very bad thing. It does mean that the abrahamic notion of a god is 'impossible' though.

    Edit: (I noticed you did address my last point already)
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
  23. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    3,041
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That seems about right. If someone proposes a God who is omnibenevolent, that is entirely, unconditionally and uncompromisingly good, it would only take one example of something that isn't entirely and unconditionally good to counter that proposition. If they propose a God who is just generally good, ultimately to achieving a positive outcome but with some short-term bad along the way that would be a different matter.
     
  24. Etbauer

    Etbauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    4,683
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would counter that such a being cannot be omnipotent.
     
  25. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,689
    Likes Received:
    772
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's fine, I've ignored the actual question of whether God exists or is evil (or would be evil if he existed) in favour of a very specific question, in keeping with the OP. The OP suggests that atheists if they want to be consistent should acknowledge God's good actions as well as the evil, and I counter with the idea that making examples of God being evil fulfils a very specific role in the argument of evil, whereas examples of God being good fills no such purpose, and leaving them out is not a failure, as much as it is focusing on the arguments that make sense.
     

Share This Page