Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2014, 11:03 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2014 11:06 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 08:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There is no issue for me, it's only an issue for you, and your definition and standard of benevolence.

Since 'benevolent' is a human concept, we get to define what benevolence is. And by every rational definition, a god who allows pointless suffering is not benevolent.

That you try to redefine benevolent to suit yourself is utterly dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself.

He's literally sacrificed his humanity on the altar of religion. In his mind god=good no matter how evil he really is.

Once again, the problem of evil reveals the true nature of this religion and its adherents.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
09-12-2014, 11:08 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:03 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Since 'benevolent' is a human concept, we get to define what benevolence is. And by every rational definition, a god who allows pointless suffering is not benevolent.

That you try to redefine benevolent to suit yourself is utterly dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself.

He's literally sacrificed his humanity on the altar of religion. in his mind god=good no matter how evil he really is.

Once again, the problem of evil reveals the true nature of this religion and its adherents.

If ethics is subjective he can make it whatever he wants, you simply dont agree with his conception, neither you or he are right are wrong.

A rational morality is an oxymoron if its subjective anymore than an opinion about a TV show is rational.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:13 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:08 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:03 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  He's literally sacrificed his humanity on the altar of religion. in his mind god=good no matter how evil he really is.

Once again, the problem of evil reveals the true nature of this religion and its adherents.

If ethics is subjective he can make it whatever he wants, you simply dont agree with his conception, neither you or he are right are wrong.

A rational morality is an oxymoron if its subjective anymore than an opinion about a TV show is rational.

I am happy to put his definition of benevolence on full display to the world, we'll see how his religion fares when exposed in this manner.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:14 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 10:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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?

Your argument is that all attributes such as good & bad, moral & immoral along with benevolence are subjective so Gawd (or for that matter anyone) can’t be objectively judged.

But in context of the OP: all religious teachings use subjective definitions to show us what Gawd wants, approves and disapproves of. If we are to hold these “subjective teachings” as true which is what the Bible (OT & NT) and Q’uaran mandate THEN we cannot be faulted for using these very definitions to refute those same teachings.

Apologists are always quick to dissassociate God from our understanding of morals and ethics, neat trick. Transparent but neat.

“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
09-12-2014, 11:16 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:08 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:03 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  He's literally sacrificed his humanity on the altar of religion. in his mind god=good no matter how evil he really is.

Once again, the problem of evil reveals the true nature of this religion and its adherents.

If ethics is subjective he can make it whatever he wants, you simply dont agree with his conception, neither you or he are right are wrong.

A rational morality is an oxymoron if its subjective anymore than an opinion about a TV show is rational.

Ethical stances can be arrived at rationally and logically. As in any system, it requires some assumptions, such as defining basic human rights. But even those definitions can be logically arrived at.

He is violating any reasonable meaning of the word benevolent. He is welcome to describe the attributes of his god, but redefining words is, at best, confusing and a hindrance to understanding. In this instance, it certainly appears desperately dishonest.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-12-2014, 11:18 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 10:49 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 10:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

There's a few things here that need to be clarified. I have at no point argued for God's benevolence, in fact my argument for the most part doesn't even depend on me being a theist. But just to be more upfront from the perspective of my own personal beliefs, the existence of suffering, meaningless or otherwise, does not lead me to judge god as benevolent, or not benevolent. Based exclusively on the existence of these things, I'm left lacking a belief, a moral judgement.

The reason I believe God is benevolent is for a variety of other things, but there's no reason for me to even bring these things to the table, because at the end of the day I can not cross a presuppositional divide. And we'll be right back here at the same starting point, that in arguing with a moral relativist, someone who believes there are no objectively right or wrong answers to moral questions, there's an impassable wall. If you believe there are no right or wrong answers, than nothing I say could be judged to be either be right or wrong.

This is not to say that the problem of evil is not a serious question, in fact it is a serious one, that brings the very idea of God existence into question, but the problem only exists for parties who believe their is in fact an objective moral reality, a transcendent moral standard, the Good as Plato would speak of, existing in the region of the knowable, there exists a last thing to be seen, only through considerable effort, and that is the idea of Good.

Unless the person I am discussing the problem of evil, believes in such a thing, this sort of teleological, somewhat morally enchanted view of the world, that no meaningful discussion about the problem of evil can ever take place. There can be meaningful discussion, but not with atheists.

For those who subscribe to an alternative view, like moral relativism, the question of what is good, what is benevolent, what is moral, will never amount to anything more than personal opinion, and differences in opinion, that no party can be right or wrong in an objective or meaningful sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:19 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:08 AM)tear151 Wrote:  If ethics is subjective he can make it whatever he wants, you simply dont agree with his conception, neither you or he are right are wrong.

A rational morality is an oxymoron if its subjective anymore than an opinion about a TV show is rational.

Ethical stances can be arrived at rationally and logically. As in any system, it requires some assumptions.

He is violating any reasonable meaning of the word benevolent. He is welcome to describe the attributes of his god, but redefining words is, at best, confusing and a hindrance to understanding. In this instance, it certainly appears desperately dishonest.

How can there be a reasonable definition to an entirely subjective concept? A definition of benevolence can only be regarded as reasonable by you in a subjective system. Can you please provide what all the "Reasonable ideas of benevolence are" and why they are reasonable, otherwise what you said it meaningless, because no one other than you in this thread knows what you mean by that.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ethical stances can be arrived at rationally and logically. As in any system, it requires some assumptions, such as defining basic human rights. But even those definitions can be logically arrived at.

So are you arguing against the view of moral relativism, that there are no right or wrong answers to moral disagreements?

Are you claiming there is in fact objective morality, and we can uncover this through rational and logical inquiry?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 10:49 AM)tear151 Wrote:  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 ethical 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.

There's a few things here that need to be clarified. I have at no point argued for God's benevolence, in fact my argument for the most part doesn't even depend on me being a theist. But just to be more upfront from the perspective of my own personal beliefs, the existence of suffering, meaningless or otherwise, does not lead me to judge god as benevolent, or not benevolent. Based exclusively on the existence of these things, I'm left lacking a belief, a moral judgement.

The reason I believe God is benevolent is for a variety of other things, but there's no reason for me to even bring these things to the table, because at the end of the day I can not cross a presuppositional divide. And we'll be right back here at the same starting point, that in arguing with a moral relativist, someone who believes there are no objectively right or wrong answers to moral questions, there's an impassable wall. If you believe there are no right or wrong answers, than nothing I say could be judged to be either be right or wrong.

This is not to say that the problem of evil is not a serious question, in fact it is a serious one, that brings the very idea of God existence into question, but the problem only exists for parties who believe their is in fact an objective moral reality, a transcendent moral standard, the Good as Plato would speak of, existing in the region of the knowable, there exists a last thing to be seen, only through considerable effort, and that is the idea of Good.

Unless the person I am discussing the problem of evil, believes in such a thing, this sort of teleological, somewhat morally enchanted view of the world, that no meaningful discussion about the problem of evil can ever take place. There can be meaningful discussion, but not with atheists.

For those who subscribe to an alternative view, like moral relativism, the question of what is good, what is benevolent, what is moral, will never amount to anything more than personal opinion, and differences in opinion, that no party can be right or wrong in an objective or meaningful sense.

Sorry to be rude but you haven't replied to what I've actually said, that I agree with, I was saying that a God that is defined as possessing the physical property "benevolence" by most abrahamic sects, but such a physical property cannot exist in a subjective system, thus, the statement "God is benevolent" has become incoherent, and that conception of God becomes contradictory, If the thread title speaks of the existences of "A deity's existance", then no, suffering is perfectly compatible, but with the popular western notion of "God", moral relativism makes one of key defining qualities of the idea of God incoherent, so that particular conception of god must not exist.

I.e You must change your idea of "A God" from God (Big G, the standard definition the title of thread implies) is omni(Benevolent,Potent,nisciant) with my personal conception of god (small g since as I've pointed out this god will have a different definition, this isn't out of disrespect, only convenience). god is omni(potent,nisciant) and I find it to be benevolent.

That second small g God can possibly be a thing, the big G God has been made an incoherent statement by your own moral system. If you believe in small "g" god, your new conception, then that's fine, only big "G" God has been made impossible.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tear151's post
09-12-2014, 11:29 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:19 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ethical stances can be arrived at rationally and logically. As in any system, it requires some assumptions.

He is violating any reasonable meaning of the word benevolent. He is welcome to describe the attributes of his god, but redefining words is, at best, confusing and a hindrance to understanding. In this instance, it certainly appears desperately dishonest.

How can there be a reasonable definition to an entirely subjective concept? A definition of benevolence can only be regarded as reasonable by you in a subjective system. Can you please provide what all the "Reasonable ideas of benevolence are" and why they are reasonable, otherwise what you said it meaningless, because no one other than you in this thread knows what you mean by that.

Benevolence is really a pretty simple concept. Its etymology is "good will" (bene + volens).

It is the desire to benefit others, and not harm them. And it is reasonable to assume that what benefits or harms oneself generally benefits or harms another.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: