I have established parameters for value equal worth, while you have not. — Joel Evans
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.I always hate it when people bring up the problem of evilas a reason to suspect god simplicter is non-existent— substantivalism
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. — BitconnectCarlos
Perhaps because suffering is morally irrelevant from God's POV. — bert1
:rofl: Sorry but you could be charitable instead of disparaging. After all, according to you, I'm not playing with a full deck. — TheMadFool
How many of these types of users are on this forum then? — substantivalism
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
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. — TheMadFool
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
If God is incapable of pain, then yes, his POV on morality will lack a component that is crucial to ours. — bert1
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
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
As I think we may already agree (not sure) what is good just is what is willed. — bert1
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
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
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
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
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
If everything is equal then there is no sacred. — BitconnectCarlos
Yes, this is (metaphorically) how our world operates — Pro Hominem
If you say, "all things have equal value," that statement says nothing about anything because everything is the same. — Pro Hominem
My question is simple: do you want to be included among the sacred or the non-sacred? — TheMadFool
Metaphorically? I think literally. God loves us all, equally. — TheMadFool
This is what bothers me a lot. What's the problem with all things having equal value? — TheMadFool
ALL are EQUAL in the EYES of the LAW. Replace LAW with God. — TheMadFool
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
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
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
So an omnibenevolent god doesn’t treat every life form equally because every life form is not equal — xinye
Worrying about who's dearer and who's not is distinctly undivine, and by extrapolation, immoral. — TheMadFool
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.