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

Indeed. But there appears to be no such causal link.

Other than perhaps -- "God lets us suffer because he wants us to be happy."

And how is that supposed to help you? — baker

I rarely think in terms of help.

Then why bother with the God concept at all?

Then why bother with the God concept at all? — baker

God is one of my favourite characters from literary fiction.

Oh. A hobby, then, with no real life application?

I guess so - I try to be aware of the various interpretations people hold.

I try to be aware of the various interpretations people hold. — Tom Storm

Why? To what end?

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? Are you a theist? I forget.

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

That's lame then, to combine mere curiosity with matters of life and death.
As it is, you appear to rest comfortably in the idea that God is a mere paper tiger.

Are you a theist? I forget.

I believe that if God exists, he is a Trumpista, a Social Darwinist. I guess this makes me a resentful prospective theist.

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.

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

The issue was mere curiosity.

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.

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

I'm glad you feel that way. But that's your business. I don't think you are in a position to judge another - unless you are trying to emulate the punishing captious God you seem to want to bring into being.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGPhpvqtOc

It's amazing how light we can make of life and death ...

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci

Hatred justifies everything, doesn't it.

Hatred justifies everything, doesn't it. — baker

Hatred does not justify love. Love, however, can justify hatred.

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci

Love, however, can justify hatred. — James Riley

Brilliant. You hate me out of love.

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci

And I still won't defend things you merely imagine I said or defend stances you merely imagine I hold.

You don't even care enough to hate me for the things I said. You hate me for the things you imagine I said.
Now that's righteousness! That's what God loves!!!!!

Brilliant. You hate me out of love. — baker

Yes, love for my family, love for Americans, and love for my country. You are an enemy. I hate you. And I hate Trump and all who support him.

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 here you are, pretending to tell me why I hate you. Pot, kettle, black.

Publicly disavow Trump, disavow the Republican Party, distance, mask, and vax. Then we can try to love. It's going to take a better man than me to love. Where the hell is that Jesus fella when you need him?

And I hate Trump and all who support him. — James Riley

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.

If God was were omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be ... any earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, wars, ... — baker

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.

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.

When God or the Gods created the world they couldn't foresee everything. They had the godly power of creation but to asign to them superhuman powers (besides the power to create) makes them inhuman monsters. God(s) is (are) benevolent and human. They don't know everything, like us, and the universe he (they) created can be full of flaws.

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

Your argument would have me be far more convincing if I rolled over and let the Trumpista's have their way. Then I could be righteous in my martyrdom. You must be a Michelle Obama lover: "When they go low, we go high." Fuck that. I'd rather give them some of their own medicine. After all, Republicans and conservatives never learn until the chickens come home to roost (Nancy Reagan, Jim Brady, Jim Baker, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, et al).

I don't know where you get the God/Trumpista shit. I'm not in that argument and don't know and don't care what you are talking about. 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.

If there is no such causal link then the argument is unjustified

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 humanist standards?

There is no standards (that we can know about) outside human standards (by definition). So if we are going to judge God, it can only be by these standards.

There can be no other meaning to “omnibenevolent” other than “omnibenevolent by humanist standards”. There are no other standards that we can use. What else do you think omnibenevolent meant?

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

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

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.

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.

Anything can be justified that way. Anything.


Also, I don't know if there exists a study on this, but I bet that children are punished the most for not respecting certain societal taboos.

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

This is true goodness. True goodness. True human goodness. The role model of human goodness you are.

If there is no such causal link then the argument is unjustified — Ghost Light

Indeed. Again, if we think of God as a capitalist businessman, the Abrahamic narrative and the way things are in the world (with all the pain, suffering, injustice) make sense.

Also, if we see God as a tribalist, preferring one tribe over others, so that good is whatever is good for the chosen tribe (even if that means death to other tribes).

It's not clear there is any reason why we shouldn't view God as a capitalist businessman or a tribalist.

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 humanist standards? — khaled

God's standards.

What else do you think omnibenevolent meant?

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.

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

How??