Indeed. But there appears to be no such causal link.Someone who uses this line of reasoning needs to show a necessary causal link between omnibenevolence (being all loving) and the removal/prevention of suffering. — Ghost Light
That's lame then, to combine mere curiosity with matters of life and death.Curiosity. Something to do. The idea galvanises so many wars and conflicts and animates so many internecine feuds, even on these virtual pages. How could one not be intrigued? — Tom Storm
I believe that if God exists, he is a Trumpista, a Social Darwinist. I guess this makes me a resentful prospective theist.Are you a theist? I forget.
That's lame then, to combine mere curiosity with matters of life and death.
— baker
Yeah, I think curiosity about matters of life and death is lame too. — Tom Storm
Matters of life and death, given that they are matters of life and death, should be approached with the according earnestness, as opposed to treating them as a mere hobby. — baker
Hatred justifies everything, doesn't it. — baker
Brilliant. You hate me out of love.Love, however, can justify hatred. — James Riley
And I still won't defend things you merely imagine I said or defend stances you merely imagine I hold."I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci
Brilliant. You hate me out of love. — baker
You don't even care enough to hate me for the things I said. You hate me for the things you imagine I said. — baker
And I hate Trump and all who support him. — James Riley
In order to speak about "omnibenevolence" ("unlimited, infinite benevolence"), we must first speak about "benevolence", which is "The quality of being well meaning; kindness" (common definition). This is something that makes sense, and it is real for most of us, since we are all human beings, i.e., entities of the same kind. However, when we start talking about God (or a "god"), we are bringing in an entity that is of a totally different kind and about which we know very little (for a lot, even nothing). How can we then know 1) if what we call "benevolence" exists for God and 2) assuming that it does, what would that mean to Him? In short, how can we know what does God consider as "benevolent"? Because only then we could judge whether everything that happens here, on our miniscule planet, created by God, as most people believe, can be considered "benevolent" or is in accordance with a benevolent plan.If Godwaswere omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be ... any earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, wars, ... — baker
You would be far more convicing if you wouldn't behave exactly like a Trumpista.
And you're just providing yet more evidence for God being a Trumpista. — baker
My point is that judging God by human standards is in conflict with the basic definition of God. — baker
God. One cannot hold, even if just for the purposes of argument, that God is omnimax, and then judge God, and still think one is being consistent. — baker
No, this is backwards. We start off with a definition of God, and God is, by definition, omnibenevolent. We then proceed to interpret the world in line with that definition.In order to speak about "omnibenevolence" ("unlimited, infinite benevolence"), we must first speak about "benevolence", which is "The quality of being well meaning; kindness" (common definition). This is something that makes sense, and it is real for most of us, since we are all human beings, i.e., entities of the same kind. However, when we start talking about God (or a "god"), we are bringing in an entity that is of a totally different kind and about which we know very little (for a lot, even nothing). How can we then know 1) if what we call "benevolence" exists for God and 2) assuming that it does, what would that mean to Him? In short, how can we know what does God consider as "benevolent"? Because only then we could judge whether everything that happens here, on our miniscule planet, created by God, as most people believe, can be considered "benevolent" or is in accordance with a benevolent plan. — Alkis Piskas
Anything can be justified that way. Anything.But we don't have to go that far. Here's a more "earthly" example. Quite often, it is necessary to punish children, always in good will, so that they can really undestand the severity of a mistake they made. However, in doing this, we appear to be "mean" to them. Yet, they usually understand later that we did that in good will and it was a correct decision.
Do as I suggested and we can engage in the merits on anything you want. Until then, your a fascist, racists, inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish person. — James Riley
If there is no such causal link then the argument is unjustified — Ghost Light
God's standards.My point is that judging God by human standards is in conflict with the basic definition of God.
— baker
Then by what standards shall he be judged if not by humaniststandards? — khaled
Think of God as a capitalist businessman or a tribalist. Now, because he's God, his perspective is all that counts, and if he happens to be a capitalist businessman or a tribalist, then this passes for omnibenevolence.What else do you think omnibenevolent meant?
How??God. One cannot hold, even if just for the purposes of argument, that God is omnimax, and then judge God, and still think one is being consistent.
— baker
Yes one can
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.