Then at those times not good, and thus not omni-good. — tim wood

Yes, but you keep forgetting that there are many definitions of God. If you are talking about 1st-century CE Roman Empire, for example, then "omnipotent" and "omniscient" sounds about right. I don't know about "omnibenevolent" and to be honest I don't care. The Platonic definition of the One as "unfathomable" and "indescribable" sounds good enough to me. The Church Fathers were happy with that too, so who am I to disagree?

If God can commit suicide, then all good can leave reality — Gregory

Maybe he can. But if he has no reason to do so, why should he? So, he doesn't.

Yes, God can kill himself. And yes, it'd be wrong for him to do so. For he disapproves of himself doing so, else he would have done it.
Of course, were he to do it, he would approve of it - for he is not going to do something he does not want to do - and so at that point it would be right for him to do it.

In this way one can see how God can do anything, and anything he does will be right.

There is nothing paradoxical in anything I have said. It is straightforward. It's just bewildering you, because you are so convinced there are problems here. Open your eyes!!

I present arguments. You say I haven't. I present explanations. You say I haven't. You just don't have a clue.

so who am I to disagree? — Apollodorus

Or I.

But, subject to correction by @Bartricks, near as I can tell he is arguing for God in the sense of a real being, real in the ordinary sense of real. And possessed not only of super-natural powers, but of contradictory powers.

My own view/understanding of god is as an idea. And the only limitation on idea, or ideas that are any good, is that they be not self-contradictory. Seems to me a small requirement.

But we can use our intuitions about what it is good for us to do to gain insight into why God allows the immorality, ignorance and suffering gs of the world — Bartricks

I agree. We certainly have powers of intuition and reason. All we need to do is use them. Ideally, this is what philosophy is supposed to teach us to do.

Have you read Jung's short piece on Job? Your God sounds like that God. Your God demands complete non-freedom in submission because your are islamic in your understanding and want a unbeatable super-figure to justify and restrain yourself

Great! An endorser. Can you resolve the paradoxical nature of Bartricks's explanations? — tim wood

I never said that I agree with everything that @Bartricks says or does. But he does make some good points that people may find worthwhile considering. I think atheist philosophy tends to get a tad boring after a while, so theism brings a bit of variation. Keeps the brain from ossifying and fossilizing if nothing else. But this is just my opinion.

There is nothing paradoxical in anything I have said. It is straightforward. It's just bewildering you, — Bartricks

I accept that as a possibility. So how do you get from omnipotent to omnibenevolent without destroying one or the other or both? And please mind that I have conceded that you could mean that God can do anything and that anything he does is good - with the reservation that a lot of his subjects would disagree, and given the peculiar nature and subject of the disagreement, their objections material and substantive.

And there is a further difficulty, raised but not on every occasion. We may suppose that god is a-temporal. He does not do this and then that, but rather that everything is in some sense always already done. Either that or he is temporal, and is at all times doing and being good. However it goes, it's messy, and the mess due, imo, to the omni- and the paradoxes it generates.

My own view/understanding of god is as an idea. And the only limitation on idea, or ideas that are any good, is that they be not self-contradictory. Seems to me a small requirement. — tim wood

Of course in philosophical terms God is an idea. But it is an interesting idea that can inspire people to think and do good things. Plus, what else is there? What good would it do to contemplate a vacuous sky or a picture of Karl Marx? Rather boring an uninspiring, don't you think? The whole point of having a mind is to create and contemplate ideas and to manifest our freedom of thought. The role of philosophy is to stimulate thought not to suppress it.

But it is an interesting idea that can inspire people to think and do good things. — Apollodorus

There is a pitfall in the middle of religion just as there is in atheism. Religion I think does more good than harm in the West in this time, but that is because there is a balance with people who don't agree with religion.

Plus, what else is there? — Apollodorus

Philosophy!

The whole point of having a mind is to create and contemplate ideas and to manifest our freedom of thought. — Apollodorus

A lot of atheists' ideas involve mathematics in some ways. "Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry." B. Russell, Study of Mathematics

No. Why would I do that?

Your God sounds like that God. — Gregory

It's not 'my' God. It's God.

Your God demands complete non-freedom in submission because your are islamic in your understanding and want a unbeatable super-figure to justify and restrain yourself — Gregory

Not anything I said. Just gibberish.

Of course in philosophical terms God is an idea. But it is an interesting idea that can inspire people to think and do good things. Plus, what else is there? What good would it do to contemplate a vacuous sky or a picture of Karl Marx? Rather boring an uninspiring, don't you think? The whole point of having a mind is to create and contemplate ideas and to manifest our freedom of thought. The role of philosophy is to stimulate thought not to suppress it. — Apollodorus

Egg-zack-ly! Or pretty much. Philosophy of any stripe ought to be cognizant of wrong thinking, and as appropriate call it out.

Psychoanalysis would simply view your arguments as a confidence in yourself. Are you Islamic or subscribe to no religion?

I am sure I have told you before: I am not religious. Reason. I listen to Reason. Is that so hard to understand?

Psychoanalysis would simply view your arguments as a confidence in yourself — Gregory

Psychoanalysis is not a person - it doesn't have a view. And don't focus on me, focus on the arguments. You Buddhists are so self-absorbed - I'm not.

I can disprove arguments for God.

The world is either:

1) necessary

2) contingent

3) neither

4) or something else

3 and 4 are correct.

Philosophy! — Gregory

Yes, of course there is philosophy. Cogito ergo sum. That's why Plato introduced the concept of ideas. Without ideas we go braindead. Even mathematics can be boring or turn you into a nutjob if you don't watch it. μηδὲν ἄγαν, meden agan, "nothing in excess". You need some balance to stay sane.

Historically many philosophers who are considered great have been monotheistic and their philosophy geared towards a hierarchy with God at the top. Plato,aristotle,descartes,Berkley,kant,newton,and others.
How do you view this?
Where these guys deficient in their logic or where they on to something? — Trinidad

Socrates was an atheist. Plato and Aristotle believed in a different thing which did not involve gods. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, never believed in gods. Sartre and Camus did not believe in gods. Russell forumated the reason why not to believe in gods, or to believe. Of the moderns, Lucas, Strentenholz, Beckermeier, Gerd Muller, Kocsis Tibor, Puskas Ocsi, and many others don't believe in god.

Your argument, my friend, reeks of the fallacy of "appeal to authority". In other words, no.

I accept that as a possibility. — tim wood

It's not a possibility. There's no question you're finding this bewildering.

You ask why an omnipotent being would be omnibenevolent. I tell you. I take you through it in baby steps. But you're already so determined that you're right, you can't understand what I am saying, right?

Shall we do it again? (It's said the average person needs a new idea explained 7 times before it'll sink in. And that's an average person).

An omnipotent person can do anything.

That's what omnipotent means.

So an omnipotent person can do anything.

Repeat that, ooo, 30 times so it sinks in.

To be able to do anything, you need to be Reason, the source of all norms and evaluations.

Therefore, an omnipotent person will be Reason. Repeat that 30 times too. And don't change the wording into Wooden nonsense (reason is an aspect of God, or whatever). An omnipotent person will be Reason. Not 'a reason'. Reason.

What is it to be all-good? It is to be fully approved of by Reason. That's why, if you're all-good, you have no reason to be any different. Which is another way of saying that if you're all-good, then Reason doesn't favour you being any different to how you are. Which is what would be the case if Reason fully approved of how you are. Which is what being all-good consists in.

So, again, repeat 30 times. "Being all-good, and being fully approved of by Reason are one and the same"

Now.....will Reason fully approve of how she is? Yes. Why? Because she's all powerful, remember? And so if she disapproves of anything about herself, she can just change it. So......she'll fully approve of how she is.

And she's Reason. And what are you if you're fully approved of by Reason? You're all-good, that's what.

So, an omnipotent person will also be omnibenevolent.

That's called an 'explanation'.

It's beautiful. It's elegant. You should be in absolute awe of it.

Psychoanalysis would simply view your arguments as a confidence in yourself. Are you Islamic or subscribe to no religion? — Gregory

So, is your argument that we should have no self-confidence and that if we do we are "Islamic"? Would you mind expanding on the logic of that?

Socrates was an atheist. — god must be atheist

Says who?

Plus, @Trinidad has been banned. You're talking to yourself.

↪Gregory No. Why would I do that?

Your God sounds like that God.
— Gregory

It's not 'my' God. It's God. — Bartricks

I have a God too. I take it out for walkies three times a day. It loves the walkies. It shits all over the place, and I collect its leftovers in a plastic bag. I first put a leash on it, because that is the law's requirement around here.

..... Waitta second. You guys are not talking about gods... you talk about dougs. Diffenent subject, sorry for the interruption.

So, is your argument that we should have no self-confidence and that if we do we are "Islamic"? Would you mind expanding on the logic of that? — Apollodorus

No, he means there is only garbage coming out of you, and the only type of people who can tolerate themselves while being you, are shit-eating gentlemen full of self-confidence.

No disrespect.

are shit-eating gentlemen full of self-confidence. — god must be atheist

Aha, you mean like yourself. I cannot but concur then. You are soo right and soo bright, you know.

Waitta second. You guys are talking about dougs. Diffenent subject — god must be atheist

And sometimes we talk about Marx. Not "diffenent". Same subject.

I can disprove arguments for God. — Gregory

Really? Well this should be good. What are you going to do for an encore? "I jump grand canyon on peddling bike"

The world is either:

1) necessary

2) contingent

3) neither

4) or something else

3 and 4 are correct. — Gregory

Er, no. Just no.

Of the moderns, Lucas, Strentenholz, Beckermeier, Gerd Muller, Kocsis Tibor, Puskas Ocsi, and many others don't believe in god. — god must be atheist

Yes, but some may argue that they are all foreigners, so they don't count.

Your argument, my friend, reeks of the fallacy of "appeal to authority". In other words, no. — god must be atheist

Well, you've just appealed to the authority of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and many others. So, presumably, you reek even more. So, sorry, but nope.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, never believed in gods. Sartre and Camus did not believe in gods. Russell forumated the reason why not to believe in gods, or to believe. — god must be atheist

Yes, "forumated" is exactly what I thought they did. I totally agree.

I have a God too. I take it out for walkies three times a day. It loves the walkies. It shits all over the place, and I collect its leftovers in a plastic bag. — god must be atheist

It is good to know that you spend part of everyday picking up the excrement of others. This world is a prison, and you've taken it upon yourself to punish yourself. Well done: God would approve.

And there is a further difficulty, raised but not on every occasion. We may suppose that god is a-temporal. He does not do this and then that, but rather that everything is in some sense always already done. Either that or he is temporal, and is at all times doing and being good. However it goes, it's messy, and the mess due, imo, to the omni- and the paradoxes it generates. — tim wood

What one earth are you on about now? You're just flailing around trying desperately to find problems. Shall we recap: omnipotence implies omnibenevolence in that an omnipotent being will also be omnibenevolent. No problem there, then. They're not incompatible properties. You think they are, for goodness knows what reason. But they're not. Omnipotence positively implies omnibenevolence, as I keep explaining over and over and over again.

Now what you're doing is trying to raise an entirely different challenge - this time to do with God's relation to time. You vaguely remember hearing or reading that there is some kind of a problem. Well, what exactly?