You seem just to be ignoring the case I have made. What I have said about the relationship between morality and God was not to address the problem of evil, but to correct the idea that morality operates as some kind of external constraint. — Bartricks
When it comes to the problem of evil, I have shown that it involves a presumption of innocence. — Bartricks
The title of your topic is "Solving the problem of evil". The problem of evil is a very specific problem defined by the contradiction inherent in the three omni's in one being. If you remove omnibenevolence as a restraint, then all you have is an omniscient, omnipotent God. Boom, problem avoided. — Philosophim
No. As stated earlier, if you know about Christianity, in it God sacrifices themselves to forgive the sins of humanity. He declares them all guilty, but forgives them. Are you saying this is evil? — Philosophim
But at this point, I think we've strayed from solving the problem of evil. — Philosophim
I have not done that. God is omnibenevolent and there is no problem of evil. Clear? I am not denying that God has any of those properties. — Bartricks
A good, all powerful being would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world. — Bartricks
I have made an argument. To be clear: if there is evidence of God's existence, then that evidence is evidence of our guilt. — Bartricks
Yes, you are denying the property of omnibenevolent. — Philosophim
Perhaps the part you do not understand is that what is good is independent from something with power. — Philosophim
Perhaps the part you do not understand is that what is good is independent from something with power.
— Philosophim
I have no idea what that means. — Bartricks
Then God is not an Omnibenevolent being. Its a being that simply creates laws for others to live by. If God says, "It is good to torture your babies and eat them," then that's a law. It doesn't mean God is perfectly good. What is good is independent of God, that is why God is omnibenevolent. God follows what is good, despite being all powerful.God makes morality. — Bartricks
And that's the entire problem your argument runs into. Morality is a set of constraints on what we should or should not do, independent of our power. An omnipotent being could change it, or defy it, but then it wouldn't be perfectly good. That is the part you are missing. — Philosophim
Divine command theory is a way of avoiding the problem of evil, not solving it. The point that I used above is the same counter to divine command theory. If God commands that we torture our babies and eat them, that is a law. No one would think that this was good, much less "the perfect good." — Philosophim
But at this point I think we've both made our cases. I've pointed out you're not really talking about a God that is omnibenevolent, and given several reasons pointing that out. You believe for your part, that might makes right, and that omnibenevolent is simply an all powerful being making rules for others to follow. — Philosophim
Reason trumps revelation, for either you have a reason to believe you have experienced a revelation, or you do not. And in the latter case you have no reason to think in the truth of the supposed revelation. And in the former case, Reason is acknowledged to have the greater authority. — Bartricks
If one freely does wrong, one thereby comes to deserve harm. That does not, of course, entail that others are obliged to give one the harm in question. It does, however, mean that it is not unjust for you to receive it. — Bartricks
What we deserve, it seems to me, is to run the gauntlet. God made us run the gauntlet, and from there on in it's down to luck precisely what happens to us. — Bartricks
And if you want confirmation that we are living in a prison, just look around you at others, or look inside yourself. Notice that pretty much everyone you meet has some vice or other. And notice that you do too. — Bartricks
Then God is not an Omnibenevolent being. Its a being that simply creates laws for others to live by. If God says, "It is good to torture your babies and eat them," then that's a law. It doesn't mean God is perfectly good. What is good is independent of God, that is why God is omnibenevolent. God follows what is good, despite being all powerful. — Philosophim
Thought about it some more: the whole omnibenevolence thing seems weaker with a god that can arbitrarily change what is good whenever he wants. Technically I think it can be retained, but it isn't as meaningful as it is with a god that commands what is good because it is good because god could potentially change morality at any time and commit any act and still be omnibenevolent. A truly omnibenevolent god would command that morality cannot be changed and relinquish his omnipotence in the process. — ToothyMaw
This is exactly it. Omnibenevolence is a restraint on what we do, because there is some greater purpose than our own personal whims. An omnipotent God could decide that we should torture and eat all of our babies, but an omnibenevolent God would not. — Philosophim
if god commands us to eat and torture babies it could be moral, — ToothyMaw
Isn't it open to you here to say that god is wrong? Wouldn't this be a situation in which the moral thing to do would be to condemn god? — Banno
you have to admit that if god is omnipotent he can make anything moral, no matter how ostensibly despicable. — ToothyMaw
If you remove omnibenevolence as a restraint, then all you have is an omniscient, omnipotent God. Boom, problem avoided. — Philosophim
That's what I'm questioning. It's the naturalistic fallacy as much as the Euthyphro. Consider the open question: is it right to eat babies? You know that it isn't. If you claim that it is because god commands it, you are simply acquiescing to a tyrant. — Banno
if god is omnipotent then anything can be moral. — ToothyMaw
There's a gap between what god commands and what we do, a point at which we make a decision to do as commanded or not.This isn't deriving an ought from an is but rather following an infallible command... — ToothyMaw
fuck what any god has to say about morality. I would rather be wrong than acquiesce to a tyrant too. — ToothyMaw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.