Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2014, 09:53 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 09:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  When you hold to a meta-ethical moral relativism, as defined by wikipedia as " meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such (moral) disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong, you're unable to say that a person who views the existence of meaningless suffering as not negating benevolence, as objectively wrong.

This should be a simple enough point, but why are folks here unable to recognize this?

No one claimed it was objectively wrong; it is morally wrong by human standards which are, of course, subjective.

And those subjective judgements are all we have, and all you have. You are the one labeling the described behavior of your god as benevolent by your subjective standards.
But your standards render the word 'benevolent' meaningless.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
09-12-2014, 09:57 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 09:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  No one claimed it was objectively wrong; it is morally wrong by human standards which are, of course, subjective.

You mean it's wrong by some human standards, and not by the standards of all humans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 09:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  No one claimed it was objectively wrong; it is morally wrong by human standards which are, of course, subjective.

You mean it's wrong by some human standards, and not by the standards of all humans?

Just the standards of the sane ones. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 10:05 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 09:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  Just the standards of the sane ones. Drinking Beverage

Well you claimed it's not objectively wrong, just subjectively wrong.

Are the standards of what is sane or not, also just as subjective?

So when I claim that meaningless suffering doesn't exclude God from being benevolent, or omnibenvolent, I'm not objectively wrong, and the best you can say is that I am not sane for believing this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 10:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 09:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  Just the standards of the sane ones. Drinking Beverage

Well you claimed it's not objectively wrong, just subjectively wrong.

Are the standards of what is sane or not, also just as subjective?

So when I claim that meaningless suffering doesn't exclude God from being benevolent, or omnibenvolent, I'm not objectively wrong, and the best you can say is that I am not sane for believing this?

I doubt that is his best - but it is sufficient. Your redefinition of benevolence renders it a meaningless concept. That is an irrational act on your part.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 10:16 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
After reading through the thread I am reminded of PleaseJesus who would ascribe his own personal definitions to words and thereby creating a word salad that, in his mind, was unassailable.

This, unfortunately, is typical of apologists as it is with Tomasia.

When the religious are tasked with defending a supernatural being that has been prescribed with human qualities one of the ways of defending is to re-define what these qualities mean in the context of a being that is outside of human understanding.

Concepts like ethics, realtivism, morality, subjectivity and objectivity, omni-anything are massaged by the apologist so that, in the end, their supernatural being is not bound by our understanding of the very terms they use to defend their position.

Drinking Beverage

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
09-12-2014, 10:24 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 10:16 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  After reading through the thread I am reminded of PleaseJesus who would ascribe his own personal definitions to words and thereby creating a word salad that, in his mind, was unassailable.

This, unfortunately, is typical of apologists as it is with Tomasia.

Lol, this is not the case at all. It's lack of reflection of your part, on this simple point, that from the perspective of moral relativism, particularly meta-ethical moral relativism, there are no objectively right or wrong answers.

And as a result my moral view, that benevolence isn't negated by the existence of meaningless suffering, is not objectively wrong or right, nor is it a redefinition just because you don't agree with it.

Why is this so hard to understand?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 10:31 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2014 10:39 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 10:13 AM)Rik Wrote:  I doubt that is his best - but it is sufficient. Your redefinition of benevolence renders it a meaningless concept. That is an irrational act on your part.


You do recognize that calling something benevolent, is in fact a moral judgement. That from the perspective of moral relativism nobody can objectively be right or wrong. It's not a question of redefinition, as not agreeing with your personal verdict, or judgement, and that my disagreement is not one that you can claim is objectively right or wrong.

It's not my problem that you have trouble swallowing your own worldview, that as much as you hate to accept moral relativism, you're still left swallowing it's vomit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 10:49 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2014 10:53 AM by tear151.)
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 10:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 10:13 AM)Rik Wrote:  I doubt that is his best - but it is sufficient. Your redefinition of benevolence renders it a meaningless concept. That is an irrational act on your part.


You do recognize that calling something benevolent, is in fact a moral judgement. That from the perspective of moral relativism nobody can objectively be right or wrong. It's not a question of redefinition, as not agreeing with your personal verdict, or judgement, and that my disagreement is not one that you can claim is objectively right or wrong.

It's not my problem that you have trouble swallowing your own worldview, that as much as you hate to accept moral relativism, you're still left swallowing it's vomit.

True enough, but God ( in the traditional sense) us both omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent.

If God is omnipotent I.e. "all good" this seems to suggest he is "absolutely good", good by some objective standard of morals (I again remind people in this thread about not reverting to objective ethics by accident, the Christian god of the scriptures certainly, so now omnibenevolence is incoherent by the subjective standard.

If anything, though your ethicsl system solves this particular issue it gives you a new one, benevolence is no longer a physical property god can hold, its a viewpoint of humans, so the idea of a benevolent god is now... Simply not a coherent statement.

God is benevolent

Is very different from

I find god benevolent but others wont

An analogy

Heavy metal is crap

Is very different from

I find heavy metal music to be bad

The badness is not a property the music holds, so the first statement makes no sense

By "meta musicsl subjectivism" heavy metal can be neither good nor bad, as this is a perception, not a property of that thing.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 10:53 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 10:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 10:13 AM)Rik Wrote:  I doubt that is his best - but it is sufficient. Your redefinition of benevolence renders it a meaningless concept. That is an irrational act on your part.


You do recognize that calling something benevolent, is in fact a moral judgement. That from the perspective of moral relativism nobody can objectively be right or wrong. It's not a question of redefinition, as not agreeing with your personal verdict, or judgement, and that my disagreement is not one that you can claim is objectively right or wrong.

It's not my problem that you have trouble swallowing your own worldview, that as much as you hate to accept moral relativism, you're still left swallowing it's vomit.

Yet you have no objective morals. If you follow the morality of the Bible, it will get you killed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: