Where does this whole "God is omnibenevolent" postulation come from?
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2011, 12:17 AM
RE: Where does this whole "God is omnibenevolent" postulation come from?
(01-06-2011 10:53 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There are places in the Bible where someone did something evil and God used it to bring about good. For instance, the last part of Genesis tells how Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery and he wound up being the second highest ruler in Egypt. He had the opportunity to warn Pharaoh of a coming famine so that he could prepare for it and save people from starvation.
[quote]But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."
Genesis 50:19,20 ESV

Saving what people? The Egyptians? You mean the group that is later visited by plague after plague? Good was the end result? If we're looking at hindsight I would have to say that saving them from famine at one time only to kill them in droves later does not make for much of an argument. There is a lot more death than healing in the book. And what good came of killing off civilization after civilization as the chosen people wandered? That their religion gained prudence is not exactly helping the ruined civilizations any, and they didn't even want the land they plundered. That you can find the occasional phrase that sounds right does not remove the ill effect of the countless phrases that don't.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2011, 08:56 AM
RE: Where does this whole "God is omnibenevolent" postulation come from?

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Charles Darwin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2011, 09:34 AM
RE: Where does this whole "God is omnibenevolent" postulation come from?
How about things that begin as good but turn out bad in the end? Like, let's say, sunlight causing skincancer?


Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2011, 10:59 AM
RE: Where does this whole "God is omnibenevolent" postulation come from?
The free will argument is one that Christians offer up, when discussions like this arise, without knowing what they're really talking about. It's parroting. As if they're suppose to feel responsible for disappointing god and as such deserve hell.

The highest proof there is that the god of man's Bible is not omni-benevolent (infinitely kind) is described in Genesis. The first book offering the first proof.
God is not omni-benevolent because he was incapable of forgiving Adam and Eve for making one choice, exercising free will which could not exist in the first place within them because he made them to be unconscious.
Omni-benevolence is made impossible further because not only did god not forgive Adam and Eve for following the script omniscience put into place in paradise, which is not so when two trees bearing fruits of damnation are planted there by omnipotence, but god also infinitely cursed the generations of the future he would see coming, for that single finite error Adam and Eve made. Which again, god being omniscient, knew would come to pass.

Why? Because god created Adam and Eve devoid of intelligence. They were incapable of rational thought, or exercise of free will. They had no knowledge. And that's why the tree of Knowledge was forbidden unto them because eating of the fruit would make them like unto god, who is omniscient. (all knowing)
Remember, after Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge,(Gnosis) they then realized they were naked and felt ashamed. An impossibility of course, because they had been naked all along and so to have shame after eating of the fruit of knowledge could only mean the fruit of god's will/creation made them feel insecure in their self image. Otherwise, they had absolutely no influence upon their self esteem to feel ashamed.

The fruit then did not mbue Adam and Eve with rational intellect, so that henceforth they would be capable of exercising free will.

It imbued them to be like unto god, the creator of the fruit, the creator of the tree's that afforded the temptation vehicles upon which Satan slithered, after having been permitted by god's free will to enter into paradise and approach the first born humans. And as god promised of those forbidden fruits that his power created, when he said eating of them would make Adam and Eve like unto himself, it did. As Adam and Eve feeling shame for their nakedness examples. Eating of that fruit imbued them with irrational intellects. Just as that which god possesses.

The god of the Bible is not only impossible, but the character described chapter and verse is wholly insane.

Christians and apologists will argue that free will exists and as a consequence they're responsible for their going to heaven or hell. However, what is missed is that those two places exist, and those two conditions that overshadow a humans life until they are dead and then the judgment is afforded to determine where one spends eternity by the same power that put it all into play in the first place, by an alleged creator that is all knowing for all time. Predestination, makes omni-benevolence impossible.
Some people need to feel unworthy of love. Some even feel they're unfit simply because they're human. Those are the kind of personalities that cleave to the psychopath described as a god, in the Bible. There's no real argument that will ever persuade common sense deserves better. And for those who feel worthy of that kind of god, and give the idea worship, it's exactly the kind of god they deserve. When they die, it's a wasted life that they lived. Feeling every breath, every step, was tainted with the rancor they felt the desperate need to overcome; the plight of their free and willful choice to see themselves as bearing god given sin.
And they worshiped him for it.

You really cant reach that kind of mind. Confused

Evil Bible
, owned and operated by an atheist, is a great resource for many things related to the Bible, and even parts of the Jewish tradition.
This part about free will is something I thought I'd share.

The Freewill Argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GassyKitten's post
03-06-2011, 05:07 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2011 06:53 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: Where does this whole "God is omnibenevolent" postulation come from?
(01-06-2011 10:53 AM)theophilus Wrote:  The reason there is so much death is that so many people sinned and rebelled against God, and death is the ultimate result of sin. It is because of God's goodness that he judges sin and removes those who practice it from the world. If he allowed sin to remain unpunished the ultimate result would be the destruction of the entire human race.

It is because of goodness that countless people were killed for having no idea what this "god" was? Is that seriously an argument? How then do you justify the world still existing seeing as how buddhism and hinduism have a relatively similar amount of people and god never smote them out of existence? If the world would end due to the Canaanites or the Ammonites not being completely wiped out, why is it not the same for the Ainu, or the Navajo? How exactly is a rebellion against god deemed as necessarily bad enough to slaughter everything that exists within a city? They killed the livestock which obviously did not have belief according to their own philosophy and therefore was not sinning for existing in those places.

How can you possibly see the lives of a small group of wandering pillagers in the middle east as the fate of the entire world? During all of these (I guess you would say) thousands of years before these wandering pillagers finally discovered each little group that didn't believe in them, what was keeping the world alive? According to your view there was rampant sin everywhere and there's no way for this to be accurate. If the world could die from the Canaanites existence then all of the other groups existing would mean the same fate. I can't believe you're trying to pull this.

And he saved Egypt because it helped his family? Nice work making your hero figure sound like an asshole =p

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: