That there are different Gods, one or many for every culture, is irrlevant. God or gods, in whichever culture fae/they are found in, represnt the idea of a perfect moral authority - an infallible creator of mora laws - and that's what the issue is all about? — TheMadFool

I totally understand this but the gods represent an unattainable notion of perfect moral authority even if true, because no one can demonstrate what they want.

I'm just skipping past the assumption and going to the practical consequences of the idea. All the believer can argue to justify your premise is a series of claims which cannot be demonstrated:

1- I know which God is true
2- I know this God is the source of moral authority
3- I know what this God wants from us regarding moral behavior.

In practical terms there is no difference between an atheist and the believer - they still have to decide what is morally acceptable based on personal preference or personal 'interpretation'.

Incidentally we can't even demonstrate point 2, that moral authority comes from any kind of God - the evidence for this is unavailable.

unattainable notion of perfect moral authority — Tom Storm

That's an entirely different question. God may not exist but we know now what God is - the ultimate moral theory that enables us to assert, without an iota of doubt, black is black and white is white!

That's an entirely different question. — TheMadFool

Yes it is, so you don't need address that. What about my key point? No one can know what God wants so morality is still dependent on argument. Theism does not offer any certainty over atheism. All positions come down to arguing a case for one particular moral view or another.

Yes it is, so you don't need address that. What about my key point? No one can know what God wants so morality is still dependent on argument. Theism does not offer any certainty over atheism. All positions come down to arguing a case for one particular moral view or another. — Tom Storm

You're missing the point but the fault is entirely mine. Apologies. It's not about what God wants, it's about what we expect from God.

Other than that, if you think that quoting Marx and Engels is a "lie", then you should take issue with the original authors. — Apollodorus

To pretend that a quote says X when it says Y, is a lie.

To post the same quotes several time, when once suffices, is the behavior of a mindless troll.

Grow some.

a

That's ok. Not your fault. Ok - we (well, some) expect God to be the foundation for all morality. I'll sit with this but it doesn't seem to provide a solution to the argument. How does this help?

How does this help? — Tom Storm

The existence of a God is simply our expectations in re a perfect moral authority (one who knows his stuff) being met. A perfect moral authority would be able to, in a manner of speaking, see through the haze that enshrouds the moral universe and identify every person, action, speech, and thought as either good or bad with the category uncertain/ambiguous/possibly both good and bad being the null set. I don't understand your objections since you know that atheistic moral theories like utilitarianism lack universal endorsement precisely because human actions are morally ambiguous in them.

Well, the problem for me is that a god hypothesis may well claim perfect moral authority but it makes no practical difference to morality in life. I am responding to the notion that secular morality is inferior to god morality.

Believers making moral choices based on God are in no better position than atheists. All they have is the idea that a perfect being might exist and that their moral choices might be pleasing to God.

But I have flogged this a lot so maybe I will put it away for now. Thanks TMF.

What in the blue blazes are you on about? Present an argument that demonstrates omnipotence and omnibenevolence to be incompatible. And it is one's mind that thinks, not one's brain.

Just to be clear: you think the belief in God and God himself are one and the same? Okaay. Presumably I can eat my belief in a ham sandwich and drink by belief in a cup of coffee.

a

I have flogged this — Tom Storm

OMG! And I've been flogging it too. :sad: Will stop now. G'day! Have fun!

Again, just gibberish. Employ your reason, and show that omnipotence - so, being able to do anything - is incompatible with being omnibenevolent - so, being fully morally good. (Psst, you're not going to be able to. Why? Because a)an omnipotent being will be omnibenevolent - that is, omnipotence implies omnibenevolence. b) an omnipotent being can......do anything. That includes being able to be morally good and do anything. See?

a

Ah, and now the condescension. I am not religious. You don't have any arguments for anything, do you?

What does omnipotence mean? It means 'able to do anything'.

Does that involve being able to be morally perfect? Yes.

So, an omnipotent being can be morally perfect.

Again: omnipotence involves being able to do anything.

Not some things and not others. Anything.

Is being morally perfect a thing? Yes.

So can an omnipotent being be morally perfect?

Yes.

It's like reasoning with a child.

God can do anything.

Child: can God do X?

Yes. He can do anything.

Child: can God do Y?

Yes. He can do anything.

Cild: what about S? Can he do S?

Yes. He can do anything.

Keep in mind that Bart thinks God can create a square circle.

Compared to that, being omnipotent and omni-benevolent in the face of ubiquitous evil is a doddle.

But more tellingly, if he thinks square circles are possible, Bart will not be in a position to consider your reasoned arguments.


(@tim wood)

a

Philosophy. Not maths or science. Philosophy.

Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are obviously compatible, as I just explained. Omnipotence involves being able to do anything......which includes being able to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time.

Furthermore, omnipotence positively implies omnibenevolence. For an omnipotent being has control over the moral law (they wouldn't be omnipotent otherwise). And thus they can make anything good, just by valuing it. And as they're omnipotent, they not going to disvalue any aspect of themselves, are they? For they can change themselves in whatever way they want. Thus, we can conclude that an omnipotent being will fully value how she is, whatever that may be. And as an omnipotent being's valuing activity constitutively determines what has moral value, she will be maximally good - that is, she will approve of herself fully.

"But, but, but, thermodynamics - thermodynamics. There can't be an omnipotent being who is also omnibenevolent, becaus thermodynamics. Thermos. Dynamic ones. They fly around and kill omnipotent beings the instance they try and be omnibenevolent too. So there!"

To pretend that a quote says X when it says Y, is a lie. — Olivier5

That's exactly what I'm saying. You're pretending that Engels didn't write that world war and the disappearance of entire "reactionary" peoples is a "step forward".

To post the same quotes several time, when once suffices, is the behavior of a mindless troll. — Olivier5

You gave no indication that you had noticed the quote, so I thought that posting it once may not have been sufficient. Plus, you seem to have a tendency of repeating yourself. You mentioned the word "lie" several times when once would have sufficed.

Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are obviously compatible, as I just explained. Omnipotence involves being able to do anything......which includes being able to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time. — Bartricks

Correct. If an agent is essentially omnipotent then it is impossible for that agent to be non-omnipotent in any regard.

You gave no indication that you had noticed the quote — Apollodorus

I commented on them repeatedly.

If all you are trying to do is piss off random people on the interwebs, you're doing okay. Not great but okay.

If you are trying to learn something, you're not doing what it takes.

If you are trying to learn something, you're not doing what it takes. — Olivier5

Neither are you if you keep denying the sources. I simply posted the quotes to demonstrate how people have different conceptions of what is good. For some people the "extirpation" or "disappearance from the face of the earth" of entire peoples in a world war is a "step forward", and for others it isn't. Some think revolution or insurrection is a good thing and others think it's a bad thing, etc.

Plus, you've already admitted that communism was a failure but are still maintaining that communism "was better than Nazism" as if that was a valid comparison. It's like saying that murderer A is better than murderer B because A murdered fewer people than B.

IMO the point is not to measure one evil against another evil but to measure both evils against what is generally accepted as good. If you choose to think otherwise, then that's fine by me. I don't care.

Although the agent who is God is not essentially omnipotent, for then that agent would lack the ability not to be omnipotent, which is incompatible with being omnipotent.

So God is essentially omnipotent in the way in which a bachelor is essentially unmarried. The person who is a bachelor is capable of having a wife, but he would not be a bachelor were he to exercise that ability. That makes him no less a bachelor. Likewise, the person of God is capable of divesting himself of omnipotence, but he would no longer be God if he did so. That makes him no less God.

God 'is' what he is, but he does not 'have' to be or do anything. This is why he can be said to be the source of his own existence.

You mean you really cannot read? Why don't you take another look at my post.

Yes. He can do anything. — Bartricks

This the theology of a five-year-old. If omnipotent, then implicitly able to do anything. If omnibenevolent, then incapable of doing anything not-benevolent. A six-year-old, on having the meanings of the words explained to him, sees the problem. HOw old are you, Bartricks?

You don't know me. I have impeccable anticommunist credentials. Theoretically, Popper's radical critique of all historicism including communism is what got me started. I also read Russian refuseniks. In practice, I've travelled behind the iron curtain when it was still a thing, in Afghanistan under Soviet occupation, in China and in post-socialist Central Asia. I know a thing or two about communism as implemented. It's usually better than what they show you on FAUX News.

This said, my conclusion is that a central command economy is unsustainable over the long term, but that so too is capitalism, as rightly pointed out by Marx and others.

Thus the greatest value of communism, historically, resided not in proposing a viable long term alternative, but in pushing capitalist economies towards greater fairness and consideration of workers rights and interests, for fear of a communist revolution. We can see that clearly now that communism is dead: western economies have become far more unequal and thus less sustainable and solidary since the fall of the iron curtain.

I8 I'll

Theoretically, Popper's radical critique of all historicism including communism is what got me started. — Olivier5

Well, I read R H S Crossman's Plato Today that was read by Popper who said it was similar to his own views. Toward the end of his book, Crossman presents his views on why Plato failed to establish the ideal state he was talking about in the Republic.

The main difficulty is that there is a seemingly insurmountable disconnect between what political theory would like to do and what is achievable in practice. Ironically, the same happened with the Fabian Socialism that Crossman (who was a Fabian) was advocating, hence the Fabians' subsequent introduction of the "Third Way" concept that was later implemented by Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair, and which was another failure.

In the case of Marx, his political theory doesn't really hold water and his much-publicized Capital says absolutely nothing about what is supposed to replace capitalism. So, ultimately, while political theorists of all shades are squabbling over what the ideal political system should be and do, the forces that really drive the economy, the corporate elites, carry on running (and to some extent ruining) the world as they please.

Unfortunately, this isn't going to change any time soon if ever. If we can't change things, at least we ought to be honest about the facts and not pretend that neo-Marxists or neo-liberals or whoever have all the answers when they clearly don't.

Yes, communism did put some pressure on capitalism but at what cost and to what end result? Communist pressure on capitalism was the argument of the Fabians who presented themselves as a compromise between communism and capitalism, but because social and economic projects proposed by Fabianism involve huge public expenses, capitalism eventually won.

Why on earth would I re-read one of your posts? They're not going to improve and i'm not a masochist.