God is defined as an omniscient being. — Tobias

Yes, that means 'all knowing'. That is, in possession of all items of knowledge.

An item of knowledge is a justified true belief.

But God determines what is justified.

So, God can make himself ignorant of something and thereby it will cease to be justified. God's will determines what is and isn't justified. Thus, God can be ignorant 'and' omniscient, for by making himself ignorant he reduces the domain of knowledge.

The question is similar to the question whether God can create another God. — Tobias

I do not follow you. Yes, God could create another God. God can do anything, so he can do that.

Also you seem to think God exists in time similar to the way human's do and that he pries in the same way as humans pry in private affars. However God does not exist in time similar to humans as he would than be under the rule of time and hence limited. God though is an unlimited being. — Tobias

Yes, and yes, God does exist in time. God creates time. And God is in time. I created a jersey. And I am in the jersey. God creates time. God is in time.

Omnibenevolence does not stand in the way of free will. He can act otherwise, but he does not, he only acts in benevolent ways. This does bring the theodicy to the fore of course. Why are there sinful things in a creation of a benevolent being? — Tobias

Omnibenevolent doesn't mean maximally benevolent - it means 'all good'. But yes, being omnibenevolent is in no way in conflict with having free will.

Why are there sinful beings? Well, God didn't create them - being omnipotent does not essentially involve having created everything. And free will seems to require being uncreated. So as we have free will, it is reasonable to conclude that we are uncreated.

Why is there wrongdoing? Because God values people having free will and exercising it. But he doesn't allow anyone to visit harm on an innocent. Why would he? He can prevent that. So it is reasonable to suppose he does. And has.

This argument is valid and sound:

1. If God exists, he would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
2. God exists
3. Therefore, God has not suffered innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
4. We are living in ignorance in a dangerous world
5. Therefore, we are not innocent

God doesn't allow harm to befall innocents. Harm befalls us. We are not innocent.

I think there has not been a single case of an innocent being tortured to death. God would not allow it. — Bartricks

Some humans have tortured innocents to death, but they are in deep dookie.

Some humans have tortured innocents to death, but they are in deep dookie. — Enrique

They already were - this, here, is dookie. And now they're deeper still. Once God's existence is established, and once his omnipotence is appreciated, there's no way of avoiding the conclusion: we're in clink doing life stretches.

There are some who, in love with themselves, imagine that God created this world 'for' them - that is, as some kind of treat or gift. A more foolish and self-centred view of things is hard to conceive of. This world is a dangerous place and we are born and live most of our lives knowing virtually nothing about it. The idea that God would do that to an innocent person is outrageous. And the idea that God 'needed' to subject us to life here to teach us something, or to permit us to exercise free will, is absurd, given that God can do anything and so could give us all goods without exposing us to any risk of harm whatever. To think otherwise is to think God incapable.

So, we are here because God wants us to be - and we are ignorant because God wants us to be, and we are exposed to the risk of harm such ignorance creates because God wants us to be. And why would he want us to be? Because he hates us. And why would he hate us? Because we attempted to do what he's doing to us to an innocent person or persons.

There is, I think, no way of avoiding these conclusions once one starts thinking clearly.

No. Of course not. — Bartricks

So then, wouldn't God be limited by the fact that he can't remain God while relinquishing one of the Os?

So, we are here because God wants us to be - and we are ignorant because God wants us to be, and we are exposed to the risk of harm such ignorance creates because God wants us to be. And why would he want us to be? Because he hates us. And why would he hate us? Because we attempted to do what he's doing to us to an innocent person or persons. — Bartricks

But how do you know? You would say that it's because he's omnibenevolent I bet, but how do you know that omnibenevolence entails hating and punishing the unjust?

What if God values lying and torturing the innocent. And since he values lying, he leads us to believe that omnibenevolence entails hating and punishing the unjust, which leads you to believe that no one is innocent, when they actually are. And since he values torturing, that's the real reason he puts us in this supposed hell.

Isn't this just as likely as the alternative that he isn't lying? There are no logical contradictions entailed in the above scenario.

Omnibenevolence does not stand in the way of free will. — Tobias

So nature has no bearing on our freedom? I believe Schopenhauer said something to the effect that we had no choice on the matter of what type/kind of personality we are. Benevolence or goodness is God's nature is it not?

I'm a fan of Barts. I find his musings bizarrely entertaining.

What? No, being able to divest yourself of something is not a limitation. It's an ability. This is painfully obvious.

And then you ask a tedious and easily answered 'how do know?' question. The standard retort of the philosophically uneducated - make every debate about how we can know anything.

How do I know? I provided a proof. Didn't you notice? I'll do it again (and then I'll provide your response).

1. If God exists, then God would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world.
2. God exists
3. Therefore, God has not suffered innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
4. We are living in ignorance in a dangerous world.
5. Therefore we are not innocent.

Now for your predicted response, absent the normal insults "oh, but how do you know, given that God can do anything and so for all you know that argument is invalid. Boom. You got owned!"

Yes? That's the line, right? Because it is possible that p, p. That's your reasoning. Possible.....therefore actual. Possible I am dreaming. Therefore I am dreaming. Possible I am not. Therefore I am not. Therefore I am dreaming and not dreaming, according to Khaled.

And yes "oh, but your god can so contradictions, so I am dreaming and not dreaming, boom! Owned again!"

Yes, 'can'. But 'can' doesn't mean 'does'. 'Possible' doesn't mean 'actual'. And no contradiction is actually true.

Possible also does not mean 'as likely to be true as any other possibility'. It is possible my body is made of cheese. Doesn't seem to be. No reason whatsoever to think it is and plenty to think it is not. But it is possible it is made of cheese. No contradiction in the notion. By khaled logic that means I have as much reason to think my body is made of cheese as that it isn't. Khaled logic isn't very good, is it? Or do you reserve such appalling reasoning for the assessment of my views alone?

One aspect of the God question is how our thoughts mirror reality. If the object of our highest idea doesn't exists, what does it tell us about our own faculties ability to find highest ideals?

Deduction: if God decides somethings as pious and somethings as sin, he, before hand, was endowed with knowledge — Vanbrainstorm

Knowledge of good and evil already is property of omniscient property of a God.

He was programmed to be this God that labels some actions as pious and others as sin. if on the rather hand he decides these things after studying human actions, the foundation by which he uses to analyze actions to label them as pious or sin, are programmed. In both cases God becomes a programmed machine. — Vanbrainstorm

Second reason (in addition to already omniscient) is:
God is "superior God" rather than "inferior God".
If God is programmed then it is inferior God.
If God is inferior then that's not God because there is God that is superior to that one.
If there is God that is superior then that (other one) is superior God.
God that is superior can't be "programmed".
Therefore God is superior.
There can't be greater God.

So nature has no bearing on our freedom? I believe Schopenhauer said something to the effect that we had no choice on the matter of what type/kind of personality we are. Benevolence or goodness is God's nature is it not? — TheMadFool

God is a different being than man. Man as created being is determined by something outside of himself. God as creating being is determined only by himself. Therefore he most of necessity be free, otherwise he would be determined by something outside of himself. Therefore he determines himself as benevolent, which is fitting because evil, in this scheme is the lack of goodness. God being perfectly fulfilled is therefore perfectly good.

So, God can make himself ignorant of something and thereby it will cease to be justified. God's will determines what is and isn't justified. Thus, God can be ignorant 'and' omniscient, for by making himself ignorant he reduces the domain of knowledge. — Bartricks

He just knows all there is to know. The choices that people will make is something to know. therefore God knows them.

I do not follow you. Yes, God could create another God. God can do anything, so he can do that. — Bartricks

God is causa sui, meaning cause of himself. Read all of scholastic philosophy up to Spinoza. A God that is created is not a God, because he has a cause outside of himself. By necessity it follows that God might create another God, but that other God is identical to itself in every aspect.

Yes, and yes, God does exist in time. God creates time. And God is in time. I created a jersey. And I am in the jersey. God creates time. God is in time. — Bartricks

Yes but you created that Jersey in time. God did not create time in time because if he did he would not have created time, time would already be there. Therefore his creation is timeless.

Why are there sinful beings? Well, God didn't create them - being omnipotent does not essentially involve having created everything. And free will seems to require being uncreated. So as we have free will, it is reasonable to conclude that we are uncreated. — Bartricks

Well there goes God the creator of everything... God did create all things, or they must have been created from nothing which is impossible.

Why is there wrongdoing? Because God values people having free will and exercising it. But he doesn't allow anyone to visit harm on an innocent. Why would he? He can prevent that. So it is reasonable to suppose he does. And has. — Bartricks

Interesting: God in all his wisdom and benevolence, values something done by something infinitesmally minute in comparison. And god quite frequently seems to allow har inflicted upon and innocent... Of course it might be that these babies that get hurt in famine and war are in some sense guilty, but that reasoning is circular. It becomes a simple article of faith and not logic anymore. The whole point of the theodicy is to find a logical philosophically sound answer to the problem of evil.

God doesn't allow harm to befall innocents. Harm befalls us. We are not innocent. — Bartricks

Everything gets harmed, so everything by article of faith must be guilty. The whole notion of innocence and guilt becomes meaningless.

He just knows all there is to know. The choices that people will make is something to know. therefore God knows them. — Tobias

No, 'omniscient' means 'all knowing'. That means he is in possession of all items of knowledge. All that is known, God knows. For God, being Reason, creates knowledge when he adopts a certain attitude towards true propositions.

What you are doing is conflating truths with knowledge. That a proposition is true does not entail that it is an item of knowledge. Thus, God can be all knowing, yet be ignorant of the truth of many propositions.

God is causa sui, meaning cause of himself. — Tobias

Yes and no, as it is an ambiguous claim. First, note that the definition of God is a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Being the cause of oneself is not one of the essential divine attributes.

However, as being omnibenevolent seems to involve having free will, and free will seems to require having not been created, we can conclude that God exists a se. (We can conclude the same about ourselves, incidentally, for we have free will too). But existing a se is not the same as creating oneself. And creating oneself - unless interpreted very broadly so that one can be maintaining oneself in exsitence and thereby qualify as being 'self caused' (Descartes' interpretation) - seems to involve a contradiction, as it would require existing prior to one's own existence. And as our reason is clear in telling us that there are no true contradictions, we can safely conclude that God has not created himself. He could, of course, for he can do anything and what our reason tells us about what's possible is no constraint on God, as God is the voice of Reason that our reason the means by which he communicates with us. But if one listens to God in the guise of the voice of Reason, then he is telling us that he did not create himself.

Read all of scholastic philosophy up to Spinoza. — Tobias

Why would I do that? It'd take ages and be very inefficient. Why don't you just follow the arguments I am presenting to you?

By necessity it follows that God might create another God, but that other God is identical to itself in every aspect. — Tobias

What is necessity? Some strange force outside even God's control? No, it is nothing. There is no necessity in the world, just truths that Reason is more adamant about than others. It is heretical to believe in necessity, for God can do anything and so nothing is necessarily true. Think about it. God can do anything. So nothing exists of necessity, for God can destroy anything and everything whenever he wants (including himself). And no proposition is true of necessity, for God has the power to falsify any and all of them.

Yes but you created that Jersey in time. — Tobias

You have missed the point somewhat. The example of the jersey was to show you that one can create something and then be in it. And so from the fact that God created time, one cannot conclude that God is outside of time. That would be as silly as thinking that because I created my jersey, I cannot be in it. Which is very silly indeed.

God did not create time in time because if he did he would not have created time, time would already be there. Therefore his creation is timeless. — Tobias

I started a thread on God and time and his relationship to it and explained in that thread exactly how it can be that God created time. Anyway, God did create time. And from that we can conclude that both causation and change does not require time. Time requires causation and change, not the other way around.

Well there goes God the creator of everything... God did create all things, or they must have been created from nothing which is impossible. — Tobias

No, bad reasoning. Of anything that exists we can ask whether it came into being or has always existed.

Note, one cannot say that all things that exist have come into being. For if one says that, then one will be forced to postulate an actual infinity of things, or an actual infinity of prior causes, or suppose that some things can come into being uncaused (which you admit is not so). And you would have to say that God was created as well, but by himself despite him not existing at the time - and so you yourself would be supposing something - God - to have come into existence out of nothing, the very thing you deny is possible! So do, please, be consistent!

So, some things must exist a se. That is, some things must exist uncreated. Proponents of the first-cause argument for God then conclude that there is precisely one such thing - God. But that does not follow and all the argument actually establishes is that there exist some uncreated things or thing.

God is, I agree, one of them, for he tells us this in so many words by allowing those of us who listen carefully to him to understand that he is all-good and thus has free will and thus exists uncreated (for it is toxic to free will to have been created by external causes).

But God tells us that we too have that status, for our reason is no less clear about our own possession of free will.

Note, those who place great store by the first-cause argument for God would admit, if they are clear thinkers anyway, that the argument does not establish God's existence, but is instead one argument in a suite of arguments that together are capable of showing God to exist.

And god quite frequently seems to allow har inflicted upon and innocent... — Tobias

No he doesn't. He exists and wouldn't, so hasn't. You're confusing the harm that befalls people here, living in ignorance in a dangerous world, to harm that God has allowed to befall the innocent. Follow the argument!!! He exists. He wouldn't allow harm to befall innocents. Harm befalls people here. So? Look, it's a basic IQ test. What follows? This: we're not innocent.

If you wake up in a bed, aching and covered in bandages and you look around and see that you are in a huge room with others in a similar situation to yourself, but you have no recollection of how you came to be here, what is it reasonable for you to conclude? That you are in a hospital and that something terrible has gone wrong with your health, yes?

Well, you are not in a hospital. You are in a prison. For God exists and you are living in ignorance in a dangerous world, something God would not have permitted to happen to you were you anything other than a very, very bad person. Deal with it.

Of course it might be that these babies that get hurt in famine and war are in some sense guilty, but that reasoning is circular. It becomes a simple article of faith and not logic anymore. The whole point of the theodicy is to find a logical philosophically sound answer to the problem of evil. — Tobias

It is not circular reasoning. This is circular reasoning:

1. P
2. Therefore P

This is my argument:

1. If God exists, then he would not suffer innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world (If p, then q)
2. God exists (p)
3. Therefore, God has not suffered innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world (therefore q)


That's not circular at all. It just extracts the implications of 1 and 2.

The whole point of the theodicy is to find a logical philosophically sound answer to the problem of evil. — Tobias

And I have done precisely that. Are you not following? I am offering - indeed, demonstrating the truth of - a prison theodicy.

Everything gets harmed, so everything by article of faith must be guilty. The whole notion of innocence and guilt becomes meaningless — Tobias

What are you on about? Not everything gets harmed. The guilty get harmed. God exists and would not allow it to be any other way.

How on earth does the notion of innocence and guilty become meaningless? You think that if there's a prison in which every inmate is guilty, then guilt doesn't mean anything? How does that even begin to work?

What? No, being able to divest yourself of something is not a limitation. It's an ability. — Bartricks

But not being able to maintain your Godhood without one of the Os is a limitation. That too, is painfully obvious. If God has that limitation, he’s not omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything can he? He can’t be God while lacking in one of the Os. Do we agree then that God can’t do absolutely anything?

Because it is possible that p, p. That's your reasoning. Possible.....therefore actual. — Bartricks

False. The line is: The opposite is just as likely, therefore your statement remains unproven.

“I don’t have uncharitable interpretations”…. Right….

Possible also does not mean 'as likely to be true as any other possibility'. It is possible my body is made of cheese. Doesn't seem to be. — Bartricks

But in my example given, the point is that both cases will result in exactly the same appearances. God could be lying, or he could not be. Either way, the appearances don’t change. So as far as you know, yes, they are just as likely.

If your body was made of cheese it would result in drastically different appearances.

If you can provide a reason for thinking God is not lying about our moral intuitions, then they won’t be just as likely. So go on, produce one.

But not being able to maintain your Godhood without one of the Os is a limitation. — khaled

What on earth are you on about? Show your reasoning. How the hell do you arrive at the conclusion that a person who is able to divest themselves of abilities is less powerful than one who is not? The latter lacks abilities the first one has, namely to divest themselves of their abilities. Christ. This is not difficult.

False. The line is: The opposite is just as likely, therefore your statement remains unproven. — khaled

What?

But in my example given, the point is that both cases will result in exactly the same appearances. God could be lying, or he could not be. Either way, the appearances don’t change. So as far as you know, yes, they are just as likely. — khaled

And my body is just as likely to be made of cheese as not, as I cannot rule out the metaphysical possibility that it is made of cheese. Good one! Go you! Now I'm just going to go chop a finger off and put it on a cracker, for there's a 50% chance it's feta. Wish I had dandruff - we're all out of parmesan.

Once more (incidentally, stop assuming I'm wrong - that'll help. Assume I might - might - just know what I'm talking about): if something appears to be the case, then we have default reason to believe taht it 'is' the case.

That applies to testimony, both of people and of reason (which is also the testimony of a person).

So, "I am sat on a chair right now". There. Do you have reason to think I am sat on a chair right now? Yes. I just told you I am. Could have been lying. That's not evidence I am lying. Brute possibilities are not good evidence. Tattoo that on your hand. Brute possibilities are not good evidence. Do it.

It is possible I am made of cheese. That's not evidence I am. It is possible that when I said I was sat on a chair, I was lying. That's not evidence I was lying.

I told you I was sat on a chair. You have reason to believe I am sat on a chair.

Now, our reason tells us things. Whatever our reason tells us, we have default reason to believe to be the case.

I must have said this about 100 times now.

Note too these are general points about how to reason well and how to figure out who has the burden of proof. They'd stand even if Reason was not a person. For regardless of whether Reason is a person or not, our faculty of reason is not infallible. And that's all you're pointing out, again and again and again: that our faculties are not infallible....so how do we know anything? Could be a malfunction. It's the same point! It's not a point that arises specifically for my kind of view about Reason. It's a general point about how we know anything about anything. Yet you keep raising it. Why?

I'll try one last time.

What on earth are you on about? Show your reasoning. How the hell do you arrive at the conclusion that a person who is able to divest themselves of abilities is less powerful than one who is not? — Bartricks

I did not arrive at that conclusion. The problem here is your lack of reading comprehension. I am not comparing one with the ability to divest themselves vs one who isn't. I am stating that there is something God cannot do, as you admit. That is: Remain God while not having one of the Os. He cannot do that. There is a thing he cannot do. Therefore, he cannot do everything. I'll repeat: He cannot do that. There is a thing he cannot do. Therefore, he cannot do everything. Understand? Do I need a third?

And my body is just as likely to be made of cheese as not, as I cannot rule out the metaphysical possibility that it is made of cheese. — Bartricks

Yes you can. Lick your skin. It doesn't taste like cheese (though in your case it honestly might). There. You ruled it out.

Now rule out the possibility that God is lying to us about what is morally correct. Go on.

incidentally, stop assuming I'm wrong - that'll help. Assume I might - might - just know what I'm talking about — Bartricks

The irony....

So, "I am sat on a chair right now". There. Do you have reason to think I am sat on a chair right now? — Bartricks

Not really. But I won't doubt it because it makes very little difference to me.

I don’t have a reason to think so because the person reporting in this case thinks rape and torture is not an injustice. They are clearly ill. So I do not trust much of what they say.

Testimony is as reliable as its author.

I told you I was sat on a chair. You have reason to believe I am sat on a chair. — Bartricks

But that's not reason enough to justify something of this scale. We're talking about our moral intuitions. These are pretty important. We'd need more reason to trust them other than simply "Someone said so". You haven’t established that this someone gives reliable testimony.

If we were trying to determine the shape of the earth thousands of years ago, and someone said "The earth is shaped like a tortoise" would that be sufficient reason to believe them? No, because we have no reason to believe their testimony is accurate in this case.

Similarly, you’ve provided no reason to believe the testimony of your God is trustworthy. Why is he the moral authority? You can say “because he’s omnibenevolent” but you’d be question begging. In order to establish his honesty about moral intuitions you refer to benevolence, but you need to assume he’s being honest about benevolence entailing honesty to use benevolence as an argument.

so how do we know anything? Could be a malfunction. It's the same point! — Bartricks

False. For instance, I can't doubt that our reason is malfunctioning without contradicting myself by using a reasoned argument.

However, I can doubt that God is lying about moral intuitions without producing contradictions.

It's not a point that arises specifically for my kind of view about Reason. It's a general point about how we know anything about anything. — Bartricks

It does arise from yours specifically. Because you think moral intuitions are someone's instructions, and that there is an objectively correct "moral intuition" that said person could be lying to us about. In other words, you're a moral realist. What God thinks is just, is what is just, and if you disagree you're wrong yes? The source of morality is outside of the minds of humans yes?

I am not a moral realist, and it's not a very popular view (it's different from objectivism). I don't believe the "correct" moral intuitions reside in a single mind or are etched on some stone tablet or anything to that effect. Their source isn't outside of the minds of humans.

They arise because you place the source of morality outside of humans, allowing someone to doubt how we come to access this source. In your case, the source tells us what is moral, why should we trust it? See how someone who doesn't believe moral intuitions stem from something outside of human minds doesn't have to deal with this objection?

Now, our reason tells us things. Whatever our reason tells us, we have default reason to believe to be the case.

I must have said this about 100 times now. — Bartricks

It tells different people different things though. For instance, I and everyone I've spoken to thinks you're an idiot. That's how things appear to us. Does that alone make you an idiot?

How do you determine whose appearances to trust?

It appears to virtually everyone that infants are innocent. Not to you though. And you believe that if an infant was tortured to death, that no injustice took place correct? What appears to everyone is different from what appears to you, how do we resolve this?

Not everything gets harmed. The guilty get harmed. God exists and would not allow it to be any other way. — Bartricks

When we have a rape, the rapist is not only having fun, but also carrying out the will of God. He does not need to have a guilty conscience. It is the victim's own fault.

You are right. If the rapist is not found, not all will be harmed.

Childish. No, the rapist is not carrying out the will of God. But by all means explain to me how you got to that conclusion.

No, the rapist is not carrying out the will of God. — Bartricks

Everything is the will of God, therefore rape is also the will of God. And the rapist is logically the instrument for it.

Only God himself can submit his free will to tyrants. His free will can be taken captive by servants of tyrants he created himself. So occasionally, his free will is impeded, and will he be subject by his own free will.

It might even come to a point that his free will is killed. In that case, how will his God-like qualities help him if there is no more will to apply his qualities? Will he just continue heavenly life without the will to go along? A lost will cannot be found back if there is no will to get it back.

And what if God made himself non-existent? How in heaven's name can he reappear again? You are not able to explain how he can do this, and there is a chance that he might do it one day, as he has eternal life.

Everything is the will of God, therefore rape is also the will of God. And the rapist is logically the instrument for it. — SolarWind

Isn't the rape the will of the devil?

Isn't the rape the will of the devil? — Verdi

The devil, if he exists, is also the will of God.

The devil, if he exists, is also the will of God. — SolarWind

How does that not contradict with God's omnibenevolent nature?

It does not.

But it seems to contradict the all-goodness.

The devil, if he exists, is also the will of God. — SolarWind

So God is bad as well as good?

It does not.

But it seems to contradict the all-goodness. — SolarWind

Well, it actually does contradict his being good only. He just wants evil to exist for the good to be contrasted with. Good deeds will become meaningless if there are no bad deeds too. In his omnibenevolency the guy did a good job.

Not my view. But whatever. If you say it is, it is. That's how things work here, yes?

Well, it actually does contradict his being good only. He just wants evil to exist for the good to be contrasted with. Good deeds will become meaningless if there are no bad deeds too. In his omnibenevolency the guy did a good job. — Verdi

Unfortunately also wrong. This mistake is made by almost everyone except me.

If the "only good" would not exist, then heaven would not exist either. And that is supposed to be good par excellence.

If the "only good" would not exist, then heaven would not exist either. And that is supposed to be good par excellence. — SolarWind

If the only good exists, then hell would not exist. Nevertheless less, hell exists. If it was God's will that the devil came into being, he must have had some pretty evil mind. Hence God is not omibenevolent.

Considering the fact that God is governed by the same physical laws as he created we can only draw the irrevocable and irrefutable conclusion that his will is not free but in obedient slavery of these inescapable laws, living itsr life like a puppet on the strings of eternal, fundamental, invariant, physical laws, and as such his will is determined by strict causal chains, pulling the strings tight, leaving no space nor time to freely exercise his will. Any feeling on his part of a free will is a false illusion, and his act of creation was predetermined by the laws which govern him. So we are a direct consequence of the imperious and submissive iron laws to which even God must obey and bow.