That's one way to solve the problem.

I have established parameters for value equal worth, while you have not. — Joel Evans

You'll find this is how he operates. He asks questions, then ignores your answers except to pick snippets out of context and ask more (inane) questions. It never goes anywhere.

I think of it like shadow boxing. It's decent exercise, but it's no substitute for having a real opponent.

Fair enough, thanks for the heads up.

Firstly, it is to be taken as true that an omnibenevolent god will not play favorites with his creation: maggots, bacteria, fish, beggars, the rich, birds, etc. are all equal in god's eyes. — TheMadFool

Are they? Human beings were made in the image of god according to Christian theology but no other animal, plant, or structure in the universe falls in this category. If this is to be divorced from Christian theology it's still a question of whether god wouldn't play favorites as the moral law such a being could arbitrarily possess could be anything from any change in nature is good (human being giving a present to their grandma is on the same grounds as a hurricane) to preferring a particular brand of conscious organisms (perhaps all conscious organisms period). I think you are sneaking in the assumption that to be moral is to treat all living objects as equal in terms of moral worth.

God permits natural evil not because he's not good but because he is good as evinced by his impartial attitude in what is after all nothing but a family feud. We share 99% of our DNA with chimps; work from that to the inevitable conclusion that we're all family and god, being a good parent will not intercede regarding the "arrangement" of humans required to play host to distant worm cousins and occasionaly dying in a disaster to feed yet another relative, bacteria. — TheMadFool

IF your god has a moral standard defined basically to be as such, thusly rather alien to human standards, then yes such a being could permit such a situation logically. Though, most people who would mention the omni-benevolence of god usually emphasize the many ways it overlaps with human moral standards. Our moral standards are imperfect but we sometimes get things right (not killing period, treating others with respect via the golden rule, etc). It's just that moral teaching is easily, not for no good reason, putting humanity on a pedestal so letting unnecessary harm (he is omnipotent, however it's defined) come to human beings via a hurricane is seemingly as immoral as if he came down personally to kill every person that would be claimed by such a storm.

An argument against 'divine providence', or for 'divine indifference' (and not necessarily - decisively - an argument for the nonexistence of 'the divine'):

(a) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
(b) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
(c) Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
(d) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

'The Riddle of Epicurus' (~300 BCE) — 180 Proof

I always hate it when people bring up the problem of evil as a reason to suspect god simplicter is non-existent. Rather only a particular god with particular properties is definitely ruled out and perhaps if a god exists they are not omni-benevolent because of the problem of evil, but there is good in the world so he wouldn't be omni-malevolent, so therefore he must be a mixture either (usually more good than evil, usually more evil than good, equally as good as he is evil, or perhaps entirely indifferent to what humans would call the moral).

You'll find this is how he operates. He asks questions, then ignores your answers except to pick snippets out of context and ask more (inane) questions. It never goes anywhere.

I think of it like shadow boxing. It's decent exercise, but it's no substitute for having a real opponent. — Pro Hominem

How many of these types of users are on this forum then?

You'll find this is how he operates. He asks questions, then ignores your answers except to pick snippets out of context and ask more (inane) questions. — Pro Hominem

:rofl: Sorry but you could be charitable instead of disparaging. After all, according to you, I'm not playing with a full deck.

I think you are sneaking in the assumption that to be moral is to treat all living objects as equal in terms of moral worth. — substantivalism

I'm not "sneaking" that in. I'm making it explicit. If you disagree be ready to end up as a meal on an alien's dinner plate; after all, an alien may be as different from us as we're different from cabbages or cattle.

Our moral standards are imperfect but we sometimes get things right (not killing period, treating others with respect via the golden rule, etc). It's just that moral teaching is easily, not for no good reason, putting humanity on a pedestal so letting unnecessary harm (he is omnipotent, however it's defined) come to human beings via a hurricane is seemingly as immoral as if he came down personally to kill every person that would be claimed by such a storm. — substantivalism

Well, imagine you're parent and you have two beautiful children. You would love them both equally and would never interfere in their affairs for to do so would be to be partial. A hurricane come along and tips the balance in favor of one child. Can you interfere?

I always hate it when people bring up the problem of evil as a reason to suspect god simplicter is non-existent — substantivalism

As I'd prefaced my quotation of "The Riddle of Epicurus", I'd used it to show how ancients / pre-scholastics call into question 'divine providence' and not to propose "a reason to suspect god simpliciter is nonexistent" as you suggest.

Why would an all good God have created an array of life forms that can only flourish at the expense of each other's suffering — Pfhorrest

Perhaps because suffering is morally irrelevant from God's POV.

Firstly, it is to be taken as true that an omnibenevolent god will not play favorites with his creation: maggots, bacteria, fish, beggars, the rich, birds, etc. are all equal in god's eyes. The widely held belief that equality is one of the pillars of the moral edifice should make that easily relatable. — TheMadFool

None of this is biblically supported, and it's not a view that any Jew or Christian would take. I've never heard any Muslim take it as well. I just stopped reading here because you're very, very far out in left field. I don't personally care if you hold this view or if this is your view of God but it's not a normal, accepted view.

None of this is biblically supported, and it's not a view that any Jew or Christian would take. I've never heard any Muslim take it as well. I just stopped reading here because you're very, very far out in left field. I don't personally care if you hold this view or if this is your view of God but it's not a normal, accepted view. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree it's not the official position of the Church but it follows, without the need for anything additional, from God's omnibenevolence - you can't be omnibenevolent and have double standards and unless Christianity, Judaism, and Islam want to throw the all-good nature of god out the window, there's nothing else to do but accept the conclusion that god would avoid taking sides in wordly affairs.

I'll just note that Jews and Muslims don't believe in omni-benevolence in God. I'd be interested to know how widespread the belief is among Christians. I'm not a Christian so I don't know the details. There are parts in the old testament where God sends earthquakes to swallow up people and he destroys entire cities.

In any case, omnibenevolence is the possession of unlimited goodness. It doesn't logically follow from that that every being from a blade of grass to a speck of dust or dirt or a maggot to a human being is valued infinitely, i.e. equally. You're basically destroying the notion of value when try to push that position because everything is apparently valued "infinitely." Value itself is predicated on the notions of "higher" and "lower." You're really just doing away with value here. To say that equality is the basis of morality is also certainly non-biblical.

EDIT: Taken a little further, your interpretation destroys holiness altogether, and places God himself as equal to a dirt.

Perhaps because suffering is morally irrelevant from God's POV. — bert1

That would suggest that God’s POV on morality is completely alien to ours, or conversely (since presumably God’s POV is right), that we have absolutely no idea what it really means for something to be moral. Which then raises the question of what we’re even saying when we say that God is omnibenevolent.

:rofl: Sorry but you could be charitable instead of disparaging. After all, according to you, I'm not playing with a full deck. — TheMadFool

I was offering a personal observation in the hopes that it would help someone new to the forums. He seemed to be sincere in trying to get substantive back and forth going, and I was only letting him know that it probably wouldn't happen. I thought it was quite charitable.

As for your "full deck", I am not the one calling you a mad fool - you did that.

How many of these types of users are on this forum then? — substantivalism

Some. I think many here are interested in having a conversation - of there being a flow of information in more than one direction. Some have more skill/experience with fostering it than others, but that doesn't mean the intent isn't there.

In the incident case, however, I have seen no evidence that the subject is interested in true discussion. Thus my assessment, offered to a third party with all sincerity.

That would suggest that God’s POV on morality is completely alien to ours, or conversely (since presumably God’s POV is right), that we have absolutely no idea what it really means for something to be moral. Which then raises the question of what we’re even saying when we say that God is omnibenevolent. — Pfhorrest

This is good. If God is incapable of pain, then yes, his POV on morality will lack a component that is crucial to ours. The relativist theist does not have to say God's POV is the right one, though. It's right for God, but right not from our point of view. But you and I have more fundamental differences on that issue (from another thread) which have surfaced here when considering God. Regarding what a theist might say (according to a friend of mine) about what it means for God to be omnibenevolent, it could just mean that God is omnipotent. For an omnipotent being, whatever is, is good. Because if it wasn't good, it could not exist. For an omnipotent being to not will something is for that something not to exist. God's omnibenevolence just follows from God's omnipotence. As I think we may already agree (not sure) what is good just is what is willed.

Human morality is very much bound up with our limited power. The values of an omnipotent being is a very different kind of ballgame.

I'll just note that Jews and Muslims don't believe in omni-benevolence in God. I'd be interested to know how widespread the belief is among Christians. I'm not a Christian so I don't know the details. There are parts in the old testament where God sends earthquakes to swallow up people and he destroys entire cities. — BitconnectCarlos

The theological justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if he was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence. Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology — Wikipedia

In any case, omnibenevolence is the possession of unlimited goodness. It doesn't logically follow from that that every being from a blade of grass to a speck of dust or dirt or a maggot to a human being is valued infinitely, i.e. equally. You're basically destroying the notion of value when try to push that position because everything is apparently valued "infinitely." Value itself is predicated on the notions of "higher" and "lower." You're really just doing away with value here. To say that equality is the basis of morality is also certainly non-biblical. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, if one is to maintain that some form of inequality must exist for value to have meaning then be ready to be discriminated against or, far worse, prepare yourself for this inevitable event: being killed, cut to pieces, cooked, and served to the being just that much higher in value than you as you are compared to animals and plants you consume on a daily basis.

Too, the very notion of value understood in your terms doesn't make sense. To think higher and lower values are essential for value to be meaningful sounds very much like saying slavery must exist and that misogyny and that racism must exist to give meaning to value. That doesn't sound right to me.

Well, if one is to maintain that some form of inequality must exist for value to have meaning then be ready to be discriminated against or, far worse, prepare yourself for this inevitable event: being killed, cut to pieces, cooked, and served to the being just that much higher in value than you as you are compared to animals and plants you consume on a daily basis. — TheMadFool

Either it must exist in materiality or among our mental concepts, inequality that is, because otherwise we wouldn't understand equity. Even if slavery remains a stain on our past it will forever guide our actions.

Too, the very notion of value understood in your terms doesn't make sense. To think higher and lower values are essential for value to be meaningful sounds very much like saying slavery must exist and that misogyny and that racism must exist to give meaning to value. That doesn't sound right to me. — TheMadFool

To think concepts such as fair laws, equity, feminism, etc, are to be valued you would have to specify why and to do so you would have to contrast (either explicitly or implicitly) them with concepts we abhor.

If God is incapable of pain, then yes, his POV on morality will lack a component that is crucial to ours. — bert1

God could be incapable of his own pain but understand what pain for others is and think it bad.

The relativist theist does not have to say God's POV is the right one, though. It's right for God, but right not from our point of view. — bert1

Theists tend not to be relativists, though. Especially not the kind who claim that God is omnibenevolent.

For an omnipotent being, whatever is, is good. Because if it wasn't good, it could not exist. For an omnipotent being to not will something is for that something not to exist. God's omnibenevolence just follows from God's omnipotence. — bert1

It’s true that whatever an omnipotent being wants is what will be real, but it’s still an open question whether what that being wants is good. Even if you were somehow a relativist theist, who holds that wanting something just is it being good (for you), all you end up saying is that God wants what he wants, but it’s an open question whether he wants we want, and so whether he is “good” in the sense that we mean.

As I think we may already agree (not sure) what is good just is what is willed. — bert1

I agree that to will something and to think it is good are the same thing, but thinking something is good is not the same thing as it being actually good.

Well, if one is to maintain that some form of inequality must exist for value to have meaning then be ready to be discriminated against — TheMadFool

Just because I believe inequality must exist for value to maintain its meaning doesn't mean I think inequality needs to be ubiquitous in every facet of society.

There's such a thing as good arguments and bad arguments, do you agree? Good art and bad art. Good reasons and bad reasons. There's inequality there.

Much of religion can be understood as drawing a distinction between the holy and unholy, the sacred and non-sacred. If everything is equal then there is no sacred. There's no relationship to slavery here.

Well, if one is to maintain that some form of inequality must exist for value to have meaning then be ready to be discriminated against or, far worse, prepare yourself for this inevitable event: being killed, cut to pieces, cooked, and served to the being just that much higher in value than you as you are compared to animals and plants you consume on a daily basis. — TheMadFool

Yes, this is (metaphorically) how our world operates.

List of fallacies
Please, spend some real time going over this. I would recommend you start by skipping to the bottom and reading all of the "red herring" fallacies. This is truly meant to be helpful.

Too, the very notion of value understood in your terms doesn't make sense. To think higher and lower values are essential for value to be meaningful sounds very much like saying slavery must exist and that misogyny and that racism must exist to give meaning to value. That doesn't sound right to me — TheMadFool

I think you're getting lost between two meanings of the word "value". You are thinking of something important to you, "I value X," and saying that it would be bad to say, for example, "I value slavery." What @BitconnectCarlos was describing was more of the placing of relative values on various things, "X is more valuable than Y", for example, "liberty is more valuable than slavery." The first is an assessment of an individual thing and is mostly a statement about oneself, the latter is an assessment of multiple things and is an attempt to make a statement about one's environment or worldview. If you say, "all things have equal value," that statement says nothing about anything because everything is the same. To put this mathematically, you can't have "2" without having "1" as well. The only numbers exempt from these kinds of formulations are the purely conceptual ones, zero and infinite. If you say all things have equal value, that value is either zero or infinite, and it doesn't really matter which one you choose. Can you see that?

List of fallacies
Please, spend some real time going over this. — Pro Hominem

:up:

Just because I believe inequality must exist for value to maintain its meaning doesn't mean I think inequality needs to be ubiquitous in every facet of society — BitconnectCarlos

Can you elaborate on this point. What exactly do you mean by inequality must exist for value?

There's such a thing as good arguments and bad arguments, do you agree? Good art and bad art. Good reasons and bad reasons. There's inequality there. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree but you need to clarify the exact relationship between value and inequality.

If everything is equal then there is no sacred. — BitconnectCarlos

According to you there must be the non-sacred for the sacred to exist and that if everything were equal, then nothing would be sacred. My question is simple: do you want to be included among the sacred or the non-sacred? Unless you're lying, I'm 100% confident that you want to be part of the sacred and that's true for everyone else. What does that indicate but that people aren't satisfied, are unhappy, about the inequality and all, excepting few oddballs I presume, want to move to one side of the inequality. In other words, everyone wants sacredness or whatever is the preferred half of any given inequality.

As you already know, inequality, the way you've described it, offers two choices - one desirable and the other not. Clearly then people will favor one over the other, act accordingly, and ceteris paribus, the inequality will no longer exist but sacredness or the preferred state would still be intact, no?

Yes, this is (metaphorically) how our world operates — Pro Hominem

Metaphorically? I think literally. God loves us all, equally.

If you say, "all things have equal value," that statement says nothing about anything because everything is the same. — Pro Hominem

This is what bothers me a lot. What's the problem with all things having equal value? By way of a counterexample to the claim that everything being equal says nothing in as appropriate a way as possible to the topic of discussion itself I would like to draw your attention to the Blind Lady Of Justice : ALL are EQUAL in the EYES of the LAW. Replace LAW with God.

My question is simple: do you want to be included among the sacred or the non-sacred? — TheMadFool

Ok, I will follow along. I want to be included among the sacred! But guess what? Under your metaphysic, everything is infinitely sacred because God is omni-benevolent - and remember that God is also omniscient too he's right about it.

Everything is infinitely sacred. This has some very ridiculous consequences in practical action. If a group of fire ants are attacking a child, are we allowed to swipe them away and hurt the infinitely sacred fire ants? Are you allowed to kill infinitely valuable bugs in your home? Your metaphysic implies that you ought to value your child or parent or brother the exact same as an ant because after all, God does, and God is also right about everything by the way. You couldn't even follow this psychologically speaking is you wanted to so its setting everyone up for cognitive dissonance.

Metaphorically? I think literally. God loves us all, equally. — TheMadFool

Is a claim about an arbitrary definition of what moral principles a being called god (not defined) is supposed to possess.

This is what bothers me a lot. What's the problem with all things having equal value? — TheMadFool

If everything was made of the same color and shade of said color then perceptually we wouldn't be able to actually make out distinctions in our waking experiences. The same is with assigning moral value universally as we desire to know what moral actions (personally morality doesn't make much sense to me independent of the humans who currently exclusively use it) are wrong or right and your playing a language game here saying that any action period is morally permissible.

ALL are EQUAL in the EYES of the LAW. Replace LAW with God. — TheMadFool

All people deserve to be JUDGED equally under the law. This is a terrible comparison as in law despite the fact that you'll have a jury of your peers whether you violated a restraining order or killed someone clearly there are what we call consequences for performing actions that violate our laws. What laws from this god of yours are we able to violate and thusly deserve judgement on his part (if this god of yours does indulge in performing such a duty)? If all are equally valued and no action is morally wrong clearly there can be no consequences. . . are you saying that the consequence (life in jail) is just as preferable (moral) as not going to jail?

In fact i'll reword it: ALL people are to be TREATED, INVESTIGATED, and JUDGED in-accordance with the LAW. They are equal only in the respect that inquiry into sentencing is to be done or performed is the same method wise for each person. . . in the end some come off innocent. . . but they also can come off as guilty.

So what does your god deem lawful and unlawful? Nothing is unlawful! Then choose a different analogy.

TheMadFool,

Your original argument may follow this form:

1.Every creature is equal in the sight of an omnibenevolent god.

2.If god loves all his creations equally, he doesn't intervene natural evil.

3.God permits natural evil.

This argument is unsound because both premises are not true.
I assume that what you’re suggesting here is based on a pantheistic view that god is an idea of “an omnibenevolent being”, so we’re not going to draw Christianity God, Jewish God or Muslim God into discussion because they’ve all clearly demonstrated anthropocentrism, which premise 1will fail in any of these cases.
First of all, it’s theoretically possible that an omnibenevolent god treats its creations equally, from maggots to human, and all of the life forms. But is it actually the case that an omnibenevolent god treats all of its creations equally — I don’t think so, at least by far. If all of the creations are equally viewed by an omnibenevolent god, there are two possible outcomes that 1)all of the creations are equal in the sense that they all live a safe, suffering-free and resource-rich life, or 2) there are killings, threats and suffering but every creature has the same level of ability or advantage to cope with danger and has the same chance to survive, and this model sort of goes cycle after cycle to ensure that every creature obtains its equality. We could basically deny the first outcome because we know that all kinds of creatures need to consume other species to survive, then left the second outcome, which is also impossible based on the facts — there will never be such equality in our world( created by an omnibenevolent god) because some creatures are evidently more defenseless than the others, for example, an elephant could easily uproot a tree and, after all, human always have the biggest chance of survival among all other creatures. Though it’s undoubted that there’s an ecological circulation within the system, it’s still true that some species experience a lot more/less number of death or have longer/shorter life span than the others. So an omnibenevolent god doesn’t treat every life form equally because every life form is not equal and can never be equal. Therefore premise 1 fails.
As for premise 2, it seems to me that it’ll be more sensible if god loves all his creations equally so he does intervene natural evil. Also if you think of god as a parent, then being impartial probably isn’t the way of showing its goodness, because seeing sibling rivalry without stopping them seems more like being indifferent than loving though. There will never be a good, loving parent who sees her children fighting over each other and all get hurt but stays and watches just because she’s too impartial to intervene. Also an omnibenevolent god wouldn’t have created a family full of everyday family feud.

Under your metaphysic, everything is infinitely sacred because God is omni-benevolent - and remember that God is also omniscient too he's right about it. — BitconnectCarlos

If the trail ends there, so be it. What, if anything, is wrong with it?

Everything is infinitely sacred. This has some very ridiculous consequences in practical action. If a group of fire ants are attacking a child, are we allowed to swipe them away and hurt the infinitely sacred fire ants? Are you allowed to kill infinitely valuable bugs in your home? Your metaphysic implies that you ought to value your child or parent or brother the exact same as an ant because after all, God does, and God is also right about everything by the way. You couldn't even follow this psychologically speaking is you wanted to so its setting everyone up for cognitive dissonance. — BitconnectCarlos

You're approaching the issue with a preconceived notion viz. that one of the two, the child or the army of ants attacking the child, is more worthy of life than the other. This is exactly what needs proving - ergo, begging the question.

Worrying about who's dearer and who's not is distinctly undivine, and by extrapolation, immoral.

Inequality in the moral sense would work like this: a certain individual or group has a greater claim to happiness than another individual or group and that's just another way of saying certain individuals or groups should suffer while others should not. However, morality is very clear on its position on the happiness/suffering dichotomy - it is, by its own admission, about happiness and definitely not about suffering. Ergo, inequality, since it divvies us up into one group that's suffering and another group that's not, can't be moral.

If everything was made of the same color and shade of said color then perceptually we wouldn't be able to actually make out distinctions in our waking experiences. The same is with assigning moral value universally as we desire to know what moral actions (personally morality doesn't make much sense to me independent of the humans who currently exclusively use it) are wrong or right and your playing a language game here saying that any action period is morally permissible. — substantivalism

Yes, I agree, differences must exist to give distinct identities to things and no better contrast for a thing's distinctness can be provided than by its exact opposite. Basically, I accept that good and bad give each other their distinct identities. Are we on the same page because I get the feeling we're not?

Anyway, if you agree with me so far, let's revisit your monochromatic world thought experiment. Suppose there's a world that's completely red, having no other color at all. Yes, we wouldn't know what not-red is but, surely, we would know what red is, right? Similarly, in a world that's completely moral, we wouldn't know what immoral is but, again, surely, we would know what moral is, correct?

So an omnibenevolent god doesn’t treat every life form equally because every life form is not equal — xinye

You're conflating two things: 1) Equality of life-forms and 2) Equality in the eyes of God. Definitely, we're all not equal - some are stronger, others are weaker; some are slow, other's fast; some are big, others small; some are gorgeous and others are ugly; so on and so forth. However, in the eyes of God, all differences are immaterial. The smallest and the biggest, the most beautiful and the ugliest, the saint and the sinner, all, and I mean all, are equal.

Worrying about who's dearer and who's not is distinctly undivine, and by extrapolation, immoral. — TheMadFool

I get it - I was trying to work within your metaphysic. I was saying that the implication is that you can't defend the child from fire ants because they would involve valuing one being over another.

I'm not trying to disprove you here. I'm just running with your system here.

It's not personally something that I would really entertain.... in fact I don't think the vast majority of the planet would entertain it because it leads to actions/consequences which most of the population would consider not only completely absurd but also extremely contrary to human nature and our day to day lived experience.... but if you want to plant your flag on this worldview then more power to you. I just don't care enough to argue with you about it. If you want to consider the life of your child or mother the same as that of an ant or a mosquito then you be you. I take it swatting away or killing mosquitos is again immoral to you because they are infinitely valuable. Enjoy your life with this worldview, it'll be an interesting one.