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

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.

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

Yes, the notion of omnipotence is simplistic and anthropomorphic.

Michael Ossipoff

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

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.

Personally, I find such types of theism attractive. For me, being fallible is a prerequisite for being lovable.

The world is full of well-meaning creators that have not had full control of their creations. Just look at Frankenstein, or any parent.

I am not sure I have ever heard of someone claiming theism, acknowledging omniscience, and benevolence but excluding omnipotence. — Rank Amateur

For one thing, why the issue? The science of Theist-ology? There are plenty of Theists who'll be most glad to talk to you....like the promotional ones who knock on your door. So ask them. ...instead of speculating.

But why is it important to know if there are Theists who acknowledge omniscience and benevolence, but exclude omnipotence? Surely when they're trying to convert you, they'll tell you about beliefs, even if you don't ask....but especially if you do ask..

As for omnipotence, do you think that Theists should believe that it's possible to make there be statements that are both false and true, or, in general to make there be mutually-contradictory facts or mutually contradictory true propositions? ...to contravene logic?

...because, otherwise, what's the "omni-" in "omnipotence" supposed to mean?

Michael Ossipoff

I can't see how any of this waffle explains the creation of Loa loa filariasis.

God remains culpable.

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

I don't remember "omnibenevolence" being on the list of God's qualities, but I wonder if the main issue isn't the obvious and direct one: that what is 'good' for humans can be 'evil' for other living creatures. And vice versa. Only a God who promotes human domination and oppression in the world gives rise, eventually, to this 'problem' of 'evil'. It's due to humans screaming "Me! Me! Me!", as children are wont to do. :roll: :fear:

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

I assume this is a joke. :smile: :smile: :smile:

just as the evil demon, brain in a vat, and dreaming butterfly thought experiments can be brushed off — Sapientia

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.

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:

I can't see how any of this waffle explains the creation of Loa loa filariasis.

God remains culpable. — Banno

...because you firmly and unshakably believe that God is omnipotent.

By the way, your use of the word "creation" is unnecessarily and unrealistically anthropomorphic. Do you also believe that that creation was accomplished in 7 days?

Michael Ossipoff

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?

I am not sure I have ever heard of someone claiming theism, acknowledging omniscience, and benevolence but excluding omnipotence. — Rank Amateur

Here's a better answer:

Good--Admitting that you don't know what you're criticizing or disbelieving is the first step to some kind of progress. The next step might be realizing that it doesn't make any sense to build an argument for Atheism on something that you don't know about.

...to loudly assert disbelief in a belief that you don't know if anyone here believes in.

But yes, we get that you disbelieve in Biblical Literalism and Fundamentalism. But do you really think a philosophy forum is the place to find the Biblical Literalists and Fundamentalists with whom you disagree? You need to take your disagreement to the people you disagree with.

For example, you could hand out leaflets in front of the church of the main door-to-door-nuisance denomination (...which I won;t name, but which you know).

(...unless you're afraid to talk to people who really disagree with you. )

Go for it!

Michael Ossipoff

:up: :up: :up:

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

I agree with you both, that our tools may well be inadequate to understand such a thing as God. 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.

we, or maybe it is just me, are not communicating well. I have no clue how any of that applies to what I think.

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

So what are we to do? This seems to be an excellent question.

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? Keep on doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results? Endlessly recycle the same arguments to no result? Pretend we're accomplishing something while the evidence argues strongly to the contrary?

Imagine that you are trying to fix your car. You think you know what the problem is, so you proceed to apply the suggested solution. And it doesn't work. So you try again. Still doesn't work. So you try yet again, this time with more cursing. :smile: Still doesn't work. At some point in this process you are going to stop what you're doing, stand back, and begin questioning your core assumption.

The core assumption of the God debate, a point of agreement between both theists and atheists, is that the point of the inquiry should be to establish a knowing, an answer.

What if that assumption is wrong? Might that explain why the God debate has experienced a consistent pattern of failure?

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

Oops! Sorry if I misinterpreted you. ...and I evidently did. I thought that you were trying to shore-up the Atheist problem-of-evil argument, by arguing that Theists believe in omnipotence. It's such a familiar theme, that I just took it for granted that that was what you were doing.

I agree with you both, that our tools may well be inadequate to understand such a thing as God. — Rank Amateur

Yes. I've been arguing that argument, logic, assertion, debate and proof are only applicable to the describable realm, the world of describable things. ...which doesn't cover or apply to Reality itself, or any issue or description about God.

And this point is at the heart of skeptical theism, which I believe to be true.

Though I consider the use of the word "God" to unrealistically-anthropomorphically imply an individual or a being (...and thereby activate the Atheists), I designate myself a Theist, if people are divided into Theists, Atheists and Agnostics, because it's my impression that Reality is Benevolence itself. I don't assert that, I don't argue it, I can't prove it..

But it seems, we as human beings have some inherent drive to understand our reason for existence.

That's why I like metaphysics (by which I mean metaphysics of the describable). And I do assert about that.

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?

Description, argument, assertion and debate are applicable to describable metaphysics, but not to matters relating to Reality itself, or God.

Contrary to many people here, I believe that definite things can be said with certainty about describable metaphysics, and I've been saying some of them, in other threads.

I claim that, just as all that happens in the physical world has a physical explanation in terms of other p physical things, then so all of describable metaphysics--the world of describable things--is explainable, noncontradictory, and consistent within metaphysics. In no way does that conflict with Theism.

Personally, my theism is a matter of faith.

Of course. It's a matter of impression. Logic, argument and proof have a range of applicability that's limited to the describable realm.

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.

We can describe what influences our impressions., When that's done without assertion, it doesn't constitute argument. For example, in other threads, I've discussed metaphysical reasons that lead to my impression about Reality. I feel that metaphysics, philosophy-of-mind,and common-sense suggest, support and point to that impression. But that's an issue for a different thread.

Michael Ossipoff

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, that's a false narrative. I'm actually doing philosophy a service by encouraging waste removal. There seems to be a common misconception, especially amongst those who are relatively new to philosophy, that the wildest imaginings to have come out of philosophy should be given more credence than they are due, and that they should be treated as being on par with views of a much stronger grounding.

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

I play by my own rules of what can and cannot be dismissed. Your rules are clearly not up to scratch if they do not separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm not dismissing any possibilities as possibilities, which would obviously be mistaken. That something is possible is the bare minimum required to gain entry before further consideration, and that much I accept. Nor am I picking and choosing based on what I like or dislike or what is more or less useful. What I am doing, and what I would encourage others to do, is to reject as serious contenders those possibilities which have so little going for them, and so much against them, in terms of plausibility and evidence and that sort of thing, that they fail to pose any real challenge.

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

If your theism is a matter of faith, then it's not reasonable, 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, which is a matter of intellect. That makes you a fool by your own standard.

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

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.

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.

So, for those of us who enjoy a bit of jousting - and I confess I do from time to time - have at it and enjoy it, but try not to get personal. For those that don't, sit back and watch the entertainment, or else change the channel and read something more uplifting.

If your theism is a matter of faith, then it's not reasonable — Sapientia

Incorrect. If it's not in conflict with established fact, or in conflict with reason, then it's reasonable.

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.

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.

, and if it's reasonable, then it's not a matter of faith.

See above.

Your belief, given that it is held as a matter of faith, is in conflict with reason

...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

Incorrect. If it's not in conflict with established fact, or in conflict with reason, then it's reasonable. — Michael Ossipoff

What a pointless "if". It is, by its nature, in conflict with reason, else it wouldn't be a matter of faith.

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

No, that's not true with regards to the matter of God. This very discussion, as well as others, attest to that. I suspect that your error here is treating the matter of God as if it is the matter of God as per your personal take on it, whereby you've made it such that God is a special exception. You don't get to have exclusive say on God.

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

No, you don't seem to understand that a matter of faith, by nature, conflicts with a matter of reason. They are chalk and cheese. If where I live were a matter of faith, which it clearly isn't, then there would be no conflict with my faith that I live on a boat in France, even though reason leads to the belief that I live in an apartment in England. Is a boat an apartment? Are England and France the same country? No, the two sets of beliefs, as well as how they were obtained, clash. They are in conflict.

...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

What are you going on about? I haven't said anything absurd. What I've said is no more absurd than noting that a dark room isn't well lit or that a wet towel isn't dry. You can't have it both ways

What a pointless "if". It is, by its nature, in conflict with reason, else it wouldn't be a matter of faith. — Sapientia

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.

If I were to believe, as many do, that Goldbach's Conjecture is true (or the Four-Colour Hypothesis, or Fermat's Last Hypothesis, before they were proved), it would be a matter of faith, even though there is no evidence for its falsity.

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

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.

Also, such a definition suggests the participants aren't actually all that interested in the question itself, and thus it shouldn't be a surprise if the inquiry never really goes anywhere except to where it's already been a million times.

...or would be, if reason, logic, science, etc. were universally-applicable. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, that's it. Until we prove that human reason is universally applicable, logic dancing is essentially meaningless (except as entertainment as agreed above). As example, there's little point to chanting Bible verses to prove a point about God until such time as there is proof the Bible is anything more than just a pile of human opinion.

Many or most vocal Internet atheists are actually heretics to their own chosen methodology. They're eager to apply reason to the other fellow's beliefs, but not to their own, which reveals they're not actually interested in reason at all, but have instead confused it with ideology.

That makes you a fool by your own standard. — Sapientia

Please dial down the volume of your ego. Thank you.

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

Sure, you won't see it as pointless if you alter the context, as you've just done. I haven't set it up so that faith must be something against which there is strong evidence. I have said that a matter of faith, by nature, conflicts with a matter of reason, and I went on to explain what I meant by that, and I stand by my previous comment. My point is that a full understanding of what makes a matter of faith a matter of faith requires a contrast with what it clashes with, with its antithesis. Like I said, they are chalk and cheese. That's the sense in which it is true that the one is in conflict with the other. They are diametrically opposed. They fundamentally differ, even in your examples, in terms of process. That's what defines them, and that's what sets them apart.

Please dial down the volume of your ego. Thank you. — Jake

No, I won't refrain from pointing out relevant logical consequences just because it offends your sensibilities. You're welcome.

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

I 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.

If your theism is a matter of faith, then it's not reasonable — Sapientia

Faith and reason are different, but not in conflict by definition.

You do many things by faith. Each time you ride an elevator or board a plane is an act of faith. You didn’t make a specific reasoned decision each time. You didn’t look up the records of the specific elevator inspector or the maintenance records of your specific plane.

When you were a little sapientia your parents took you on an elevator. Riding elevators was conditioned as an ok thing to do.

You may test your faith in elevators as being reasonable. You have ridden them a lot and it has worked out ok.

But none the less it is not a matter of fact that you will not get stuck between floors, and it is not a specific reasoned decision to get on a particular elevator. You have faith in elevators and that faith is reasonable.

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

Again, please prove that reason is relevant to the subject of gods. Until that's done, isn't the question of whether any opinion on the subject of God is reasonable basically meaningless?

As example, here's a hypothetical challenge:

Does your opinion about God comply with what my ouija board indicates?

Given that we likely agree that ouija boards have no authority or credibility in relation to the God issue, isn't my challenge pointless? If I wanted to make my ouija board challenge meaningful, wouldn't I first have to prove that ouija boards are somehow qualified to speak to the God issue?

The point here is that while reason is clearly very useful for very many things, that doesn't automatically make it relevant and useful to every subject, particularly those vastly beyond human scale, such as the God proposal. It wouldn't be good philosophy to simply assume such a thing on faith, right?