Is the anti-theist argument from undeserved suffering circularish?

[Nearly Sane]

May I just remind you that you will be hard pressed to find universal agreement of what omnibenevolence is.


If one finds childhood leukemia to be bad argue how that fits in with restoration to fullness of life by God in the next life.

And since there isn't agreement about omnipotence and omniscient, it's in the same category.

Because as already covered by Shaker earlier in the thread,buying a child an ice cream after burning its arm with a cigarette doesn't mean that the choice to make someone suffer goes away.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And since there isn't agreement about omnipotence and omniscient, it's in the same category.

Omniscient means knowing everything. How is that debateable? You either know everything or you are not omniscient.

Omnipotent means the ability to do anything. Again how is that definition debateable.

Omnibenevolent on the other hand is eminently debateable.

[Shaker]

Omniscient means knowing everything. How is that debateable? You either know everything or you are not omniscient.

Omnipotent means the ability to do anything. Again how is that definition debateable.

At least one member of this forum (and many others outside it) quibbles about the definition of omnipotence - the straightforward, on-its-face, literal meaning of the word is of course the ability to do literally anything. However, since this leads to self-evident logical absurdities (a truly omnipotent entity could create square circles and what have you), some theists subject the term to the death by a thousand cuts and say that it doesn't mean literally anything but everything logically possible. 

So it looks as though it's debatable after all. Bad luck, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Buying a child an ice cream after burning its arm with a cigarette doesn't mean that the choice to make someone suffer goes away.

But this selective but shit analogy from ''the Leicester Dillahunty'' ignores better analogies

vis Building a house buying a child an ice cream after it falls down the stairs.....or gets ill etc, etc.

You are just loading your argument. Just like pushing a turd in the pan and hoping the emotional shock value gives it the momentum to reach the other side.

[Nearly Sane]

Omniscient means knowing everything. How is that debateable? You either know everything or you are not omniscient.

Omnipotent means the ability to do anything. Again how is that definition debateable.

Omnibenevolent on the other hand is eminently debateable.

Except believers do debate precisely what omnipotent and omniscient means. SteveH has just recently done that for omnipitent, Alien and indeed Alan Burns seem to think their God doesn't know what people will do. So sorrt, you are simply wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

But this selective but shit analogy from ''the Leicester Dillahunty'' ignores better analogies

vis Building a house buying a child an ice cream after it falls down the stairs.....or gets ill etc, etc.

You are just loading your argument. Just like pushing a turd in the pan and hoping the emotional shock value gives it the momentum to reach the other side.

Your analogy ignores that if God is omnipotent than it pushed the child down the stairs and made it ill, and you worship it for doing so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At least one member of this forum (and many others outside it) quibbles about the definition of omnipotence - the straightforward, on-its-face, literal meaning of the word is of course the ability to do literally anything. However, since this leads to self-evident logical absurdities (a truly omnipotent entity could create square circles and what have you), some theists subject the term to the death by a thousand cuts and say that it doesn't mean literally anything but everything logically possible. 

So it looks as though it's debatable after all. Bad luck, Vlad.

These are problems for certain classical approaches of philosophy.

The pure joy of philosophy is if there are five different definitions of omnipotence say....that's great but the possible definitions of omnibenevolence must far exceed that.


If there are contradictions then that is a problem for classical philosophy.


The bible is the expression of what is believed  rather than classical philosophy and the exploitation of it by antitheists which is an exercise in straw manning.

[Nearly Sane]

At least one member of this forum (and many others outside it) quibbles about the definition of omnipotence - the straightforward, on-its-face, literal meaning of the word is of course the ability to do literally anything. However, since this leads to self-evident logical absurdities (a truly omnipotent entity could create square circles and what have you), some theists subject the term to the death by a thousand cuts and say that it doesn't mean literally anything but everything logically possible. 

So it looks as though it's debatable after all. Bad luck, Vlad.

I've never viewed the doing anything logically possible as  a redefinition of omnipotence. It's the more dubious question of its nature that I think causes the problem which is used to get round the Euthyphro. Even with that we would still have the Panglossian issue that this has to be the best of all osdouble worlds and that the deity has acted in a purely deterministic way.

[Nearly Sane]

These are problems for certain classical approaches of philosophy.

The pure joy of philosophy is if there are five different definitions of omnipotence say....that's great but the possible definitions of omnibenevolence must far exceed that.


If there are contradictions then that is a problem for classical philosophy.


The bible is the expression of what is believed  rather than classical philosophy and the exploitation of it by antitheists which is an exercise in straw manning.

Ah so although there is disagreement, something you said there wasn't, it's now the wrong type of disagreement.

And as covered earlier, since the Bible supports slavery,murder and rape, you worship the being that carries out such actions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except believers do debate precisely what omnipotent and omniscient means. SteveH has just recently done that for omnipitent, Alien and indeed Alan Burns seem to think their God doesn't know what people will do. So sorrt, you are simply wrong.

They debate what it means in terms of Christianity though not classic philosophy.

You though give the impression that you absolutely know the definitions otherwise how could you possibly reach a conclusion on God's status as logically coherent?

What you are avoiding is the fact that both the definitions and the conclusion are in the context of classical philosophy which cannot be equated with what christians have expressed.

You are therefore strawmanning i'm afraid.

Aside from that any definition of omnipotence which has God ''having'' to do something is self negating isn't it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah so although there is disagreement, something you said there wasn't, it's now the wrong type of disagreement.

And as covered earlier, since the Bible supports slavery,murder and rape, you worship the being that carries out such actions.

Yes Christians have disagreements. It is you who suggest there are none in classical philosophy IMV, hence claims that God is a logical impossibility

You are of course cherrypicking the Bible.

God's intended relationship with humanity is Edenic it is humanity which falls.

[Shaker]

God's intended relationship with humanity is Edenic it is humanity which falls.

Could God have prevented this "fall", or not? Did God know about it beforehand, or not? Having occurred, could God have done something about it, or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Could God have prevented this "fall", or not? Did God know about it beforehand, or not? Having occurred, could God have done something about it, or not?

1) Yes, By not creating humanity. But since he did, man could also have prevented it by not falling

2) Don't know

3) He provided Jesus to allow the relationship to be restored.

[Shaker]

1) Yes, By not creating humanity.

So you seem to be saying God's alleged power is limited - he couldn't have created a non-falling humanity. Why not? A workman who can only work in a shoddy and defective manner isn't much of a workman, is he?

Don't know

Yet you do claim to know that God could only have prevented a "fall" by not creating humanity in the first place. Strange.

But since he did, man could also have prevented it by not falling

Except that this so-called "fall" was, in the tale, the awareness of good and evil via sampling some stray fruit. However, since eating said fruit conferred the knowledge of good and evil, there can have been no such knowledge prior to actually eating the fruit. There was no prior awareness of any "fall". It's a simple point of logic, Vlad.

3) He provided Jesus to allow the relationship to be restored.

Why not simply restore said relationships without the torture and temporary death thing?

[Nearly Sane]

They debate what it means in terms of Christianity though not classic philosophy.

You though give the impression that you absolutely know the definitions otherwise how could you possibly reach a conclusion on God's status as logically coherent?

What you are avoiding is the fact that both the definitions and the conclusion are in the context of classical philosophy which cannot be equated with what christians have expressed.

You are therefore strawmanning i'm afraid.

Aside from that any definition of omnipotence which has God ''having'' to do something is self negating isn't it?

I have no idea what you think you mean by Christianity and classical philosophy. I am sure you think you are making some points but I'm at a loss as to what they are as you seem to use your own private language.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes Christians have disagreements. It is you who suggest there are none in classical philosophy IMV, hence claims that God is a logical impossibility

You are of course cherrypicking the Bible.

God's intended relationship with humanity is Edenic it is humanity which falls.

I note your inability to justify why you worship something that you think approves of slavery, rape, and murder

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have put in several replies but the forum has acquired some ability to  prematurely time me and wipe my posts as well as monkeying with spacings out so I may return later.

[Nearly Sane]

I have put in several replies but the forum has acquired some ability to  prematurely time me and wipe my posts as well as monkeying with spacings out so I may return later.

No, it hasn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it hasn't.

Then it must be at my end.

Thanks for doing an in depth analysis of your IT on my behalf.

[Nearly Sane]

Then it must be at my end.

Thanks for doing an in depth analysis of your IT on my behalf.

Not my IT. But it isn't intelligent, and there have been no changes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you seem to be saying God's alleged power is limited - he couldn't have created a non-falling humanity. Why not? A workman who can only work in a shoddy and defective manner isn't much of a workman, is he?

God does not make man in the fallen state. Mankind is the master/author of it's own fallenness.

The key to how come man chooses to fall is to be found in the choice not to be restored.

[Roses]

God does not make man in the fallen state. Mankind is the master/author of it's own fallenness.

The key to how come man chooses to fall is to be found in the choice not to be restored.

If god exists and made humankind in its own image then it is a wonder there are any good and decent people in this world. The Biblical god is a very fallen entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no idea what you think you mean by Christianity and classical philosophy. I am sure you think you are making some points but I'm at a loss as to what they are as you seem to use your own private language.

OK there is a view of God known as the God of the philosophers


Based on a range of things which have a fixed definition ''The omnis''


We know they have a fixed definition because people doing the philosophy find The God they have posited to be illogical.


That exercise though is not Christianity and , in incompetent hands, ends up as straw manning.



Non theists seem to be stymied by there insistence on throwing in omnibenevolence to mistakenly try to gussy up a philosophical exercise into an argument against christianity.


Which is a dead loss and completely useless IMV.

[Rhiannon]

God does not make man in the fallen state. Mankind is the master/author of it's own fallenness.

The key to how come man chooses to fall is to be found in the choice not to be restored.

What you are saying here is essentially non believers (including good people) choosing not to believe in the restorative justice of the cross causes childhood leukaemia.

[Nearly Sane]

God does not make man in the fallen state. Mankind is the master/author of it's own fallenness.

The key to how come man chooses to fall is to be found in the choice not to be restored.

Unless you want to say omnipotent and omniscient are just the same arguable as omnibenevolent, then the above is wrong. Since you don't, the above is wrong.