It is often used by atheists. It is also used by theists that reject the notion of omnipotence, and I have witnessed such people making it. Are you saying that I misheard, or that they were lying when they said they were theists? — andrewk
No. It is an argument by anybody that does not believe that there is a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, that no being, created or uncreated, have all three of those properties. In no way does that require that the person making the argument is an atheist.
My choice is to drop the omnipotent bit, as it has enormous logical problems even before one gets to considering the problem of evil. A non-omnipotent god is far more lovable. — andrewk
What do you want to know? I am by no means knowledgeable about all types of theism. I am just observing that omnipotence does not logically follow from creating the universe, or from omniscience or benevolence, and I have seen people who are devout theists talk about the limitations of their god. I even saw a Christian book about it a few years back. I'll look for it but I suspect it may have gone back to the second-hand book seller (It was not mine). The theme was that the incarnation and crucifixion was God's attempt to redress the harm from mistakes that She made.I am not sure I have ever heard of someone claiming theism, acknowledging omniscience, and benevolence but excluding omnipotence. Can you fill in some more on that for me. — Rank Amateur
I am not sure I have ever heard of someone claiming theism, acknowledging omniscience, and benevolence but excluding omnipotence. — Rank Amateur
So the so-called 'problem of evil' is a purely Christian problem? — Pattern-chaser
It is a problem of any set of beliefs that asserts that its god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. — andrewk
What have they done to the earth?
What have they done to our fair sister?
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn
And tied her with fences and dragged her down — Jim Morrison and the Doors - When the music's over
I can't see how any of this waffle explains the creation of Loa loa filariasis. God remains culpable. — Banno
just as the evil demon, brain in a vat, and dreaming butterfly thought experiments can be brushed off — Sapientia
I can't see how any of this waffle explains the creation of Loa loa filariasis.
God remains culpable. — Banno
I am not sure I have ever heard of someone claiming theism, acknowledging omniscience, and benevolence but excluding omnipotence. — Rank Amateur
Before we continue with all this wonderful logic dancing, could somebody please prove that human logic would be at all relevant to anything the scale of a god?
It seems that discussions such as this one pretty much always assume without questioning that reason is relevant, and then proceed in earnest based on that assumption. That process might be compared to a theology convention where everyone takes it to be an obvious given that the Bible is the word of God, and then from that unquestioned assumption proceed to have a Bible verse interpretation debate.
If you're an atheist, imagine you are at that theology convention. You probably won't get sucked in to the Bible verse interpretation debate, because you will first ask for proof that the Bible is anything more than a pile of human opinions. That is, you will reasonably challenge the authority the entire debate is built upon before agreeing to engage the Bible verse interpretations.
That's what I'm asking for, before we dive in to logic dancing could someone please demonstrate that something as small as human reason would be at all relevant to something the scale of gods? — Jake
But it seems, we as human beings have some inherent drive to understand our reason for existence. So, what are we to do? Use the tools we have, as feeble as they might be? Or throw up our hands and ignore the drive? — Rank Amateur
we, or maybe it is just me, are not communicating well. I have no clue how any of that applies to what I think. — Rank Amateur
I agree with you both, that our tools may well be inadequate to understand such a thing as God. — Rank Amateur
And this point is at the heart of skeptical theism, which I believe to be true.
But it seems, we as human beings have some inherent drive to understand our reason for existence.
So, what are we to do? Use the tools we have, as feeble as they might be? Or throw up our hands and ignore the drive?
Personally, my theism is a matter of faith.
But it is important to me that this belief is not in conflict with fact or reason, which would than make me a fool. I believe we have the tools, as weak as they are, to wrestle with the question that theism is or is not reasonable.
This isn't really the right place to discuss this - it's way off topic - but I just can't let this go. This is the main lesson that philosophy, via logic, passes to humans: that these theories can't be brushed off. — Pattern-chaser
No theory which accounts for all the evidence - especially when there's little evidence, or none at all - can be dismissed. We can only chose between them on the basis of utility; of how useful they are. You could be a brain in a vat. There is no way you can tell. To dismiss this possibility leaves you in a state of (philosophical) sin. It means you only believe stuff that you like, and feel free to dismiss that which you don't. If you do that, philosophers will mock you, and call you names in the playground. :joke: — Pattern-chaser
Personally, my theism is a matter of faith. But it is important to me that this belief is not in conflict with fact or reason, which would than make me a fool. — Rank Amateur
For me the answer is to recognise that religious beliefs are predominantly formed by upbringing, peer group, culture and personal spiritual experience, not by logical argument. Logical arguments for or against religious beliefs only very rarely sway people. I think the exceptions are people that already feel an impulse towards or away from the belief. An attractive argument can form the catalyst for somebody that is already inclined towards a position to take the final step and adopt it. But such a person will usually not be one of the protagonists in the argument.The God debate has been going on in some form or another since the very beginning of theism (often the debate has been a private one) and we're at the same place we were when we started. In the very beginning some people believed, some people didn't, and others weren't sure. And this is just where we still are today, after at least centuries of discussion which has often been led by some of the best minds among us on all sides.
So what are we to do? — Jake
If your theism is a matter of faith, then it's not reasonable — Sapientia
, and if it's reasonable, then it's not a matter of faith.
Your belief, given that it is held as a matter of faith, is in conflict with reason
Incorrect. If it's not in conflict with established fact, or in conflict with reason, then it's reasonable. — Michael Ossipoff
The matter of God, or the matter of the nature or character of Reality as a whole isn't amenable to, or a topic for, proof, reason or logic. — Michael Ossipoff
And, regarding a matter that logic and reason don't apply to, the only way to be in conflict with reason would be to try apply reason to that matter. ...as you're attempting to do. — Michael Ossipoff
...or would be, if reason, logic, science, etc. were universally-applicable. But they aren't. ...except in the mind of a type of pseudoscientist known as a Science-Worshipper, who has unduly grandiose beliefs about the range of applicability.of reason, logic and science.
No, there's no chance of proving to you that your supposed "reason" doesn't cover all of Reality.
So let's just say that it's acknowledged that you think it does, and agree to disagree. — Michael Ossipoff
I don't see Michael's 'if' as pointless. Faith is usually considered to be believing something for which there is little or no evidence, not believing something against which there is strong evidence.What a pointless "if". It is, by its nature, in conflict with reason, else it wouldn't be a matter of faith. — Sapientia
In most cases the arguments are between die-hard adherents of the opposing points of view, and the lack of resolution doesn't matter. The argument is had for the pure joy of intellectual sparring - like a jousting match but less lethal. — andrewk
...or would be, if reason, logic, science, etc. were universally-applicable. — Michael Ossipoff
I don't see Michael's 'if' as pointless. Faith is usually considered to be believing something for which there is little or no evidence, not believing something against which there is strong evidence. — andrewk
Yes, agreed. If we declare the purpose of the God debate to be entertainment then the goal is achieved, at least in the context of Internet forums. — Jake
If your theism is a matter of faith, then it's not reasonable — Sapientia
think such discussions can be more than entertainment. I do however prefer to state the proposition as therefore it is reasonable to believe God is vs God is. And that is the value of such discussions. For both the theist and the atheist to test their beliefs are reasonable, and acknowledge the other belief is reasonable as well. — Rank Amateur
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.