Religions have succeeded

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As long as one holds that there is evil in the world and that God is all good, it does not matter what one considers benevolence, the problem remains.

I look forward to your explanation of that. Given that it can be argued that not giving freedom to the universe could be considered the ultimate evil.

I would also be interested in your definitions of evil and benevolence. If you are hazarding that there is something wrong with the set up then we can be pretty sure you have a better one in mind. What is it ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But let's remember that Vlad's great hero is C S Lewis who came out with a similarly non-sensical comment - claiming that when he was an atheist he was angry with god for not existing.

Ignoring Gordon's positive assertion that God is non existential and his inevitable refusal to justify that assertion. I think Lewis only realised he had anger issues with God when he became a Christian. Appeal to us being angry with God is after all to be found in Fry's arguments and also I would suggest finds it's way into Enki' arguments.
Is there any jigeree pokery turning an antitheist argument into an atheist argument? Not sure.

[Gordon]

Ignoring Gordon's positive assertion that God is non existential and his inevitable refusal to justify that assertion.

I didn't assert that: I simply asked you a question based on what you actually posted - stop lying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't assert that: I simply asked you a question based on what you actually posted - stop lying.

Sorry, that should have read non existent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, and let me get this straight, you're saying that a non-existant god could be a "complete bastard"?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

As long as one holds that there is evil in the world and that God is all good, it does not matter what one considers benevolence, the problem remains.

Depends on who is defining "good" and "evil" and how they are defining it.

The belief in human freedom of choice between competing impulses, combined with the complexity of moral choices, can of course be navigated without a belief in a supernatural component or religious spiritualty.  Someone who does not believe in religious spirituality may define "good" as an absence of pain. But if someone has a belief in the supernatural and religious spirituality, then their definition of what is "good" in terms of their religious spirituality might include an acceptance of pain, so will be different from someone who has no belief in religious spirituality.

My understanding/ interpretation of Islamic teachings on the meaning of benevolence does not really equate "good" with meaning a complete absence of pain, illness etc. It seem to be more to do with Allah having a well-meaning, merciful, just intention for human spirituality in the context of humans having the freedom to choose between different options, including the option to do something that we might label as "morally bad" or "evil".

[jeremyp]

I'm not trying to make it go away. I'm just pointing out that an antitheistic argument isn't necessarily an atheist one. E G God being a complete bastard tells us nothing of his existence or otherwise.

No but evidence that any putative god is a bastard does tend to be highly embarrassing to those of his adherents who believe he is all-loving.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No but evidence that any putative god is a bastard does tend to be highly embarrassing to those of his adherents who believe he is all-loving.

Why do you think they think God is loving while all you can see is a bastard?

[jeremyp]

Why do you think they think God is loving while all you can see is a bastard?

That's easy. It's what they want to believe, so they make excuses or they ignore the evidence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No problem.

The Cambridge Dictionary says prayer is 'the act or ceremony of speaking to God or a god, esp. to express thanks or to ask for help, or the words used in this act' and I must say my view was more about the asking for help element - hence my initial question about prayers being answered.

Yes agree that these elements are a part of prayer. I see the ritual of asking for help in prayer as an acknowledgement of human weakness and imperfection and the belief in a higher power. Acknowledging it can be helpful e.g. psychologically (or spiritually if you believe in the concept of religious spirituality).

I think when most people pray they are not necessarily expecting the specific help that they think they need, so they would probably believe that their need might be helped but the help manifests itself in an entirely different way from what they thought they needed or prayed for.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That's easy. It's what they want to believe, so they make excuses or they ignore the evidence.

Not sure what you mean by "want to believe". Are you saying that you think that people can choose their beliefs?

Evidence of what? Do you mean lack of repeatable, testable objective evidence for a supernatural entity? As opposed to subjective evidence that a theist interprets as evidence for a supernatural entity? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's easy. It's what they want to believe, so they make excuses or they ignore the evidence.

We can not treat evidence for good or bad in the same way that we treat evidence  for presence, power or knowledge, if we can even talk of evidence or measure good or bad.

I don't even know what you mean by omnibenevolent.

[Enki]

As long as one holds that there is evil in the world and that God is all good, it does not matter what one considers benevolence, the problem remains.
I look forward to your explanation of that. Given that it can be argued that not giving freedom to the universe could be considered the ultimate evil.

If God is all good(omnibenovolent)  and there is evil in the world, then either a) God is not omnipotent or b) God is not omniscient  or c)God is not ever present or d) there is no God. Not sure what you mean by 'freedom to the universe' but if you are talking about free will in the Biblical sense, then an omnibenovolent God would have eliminated the evils that spring from it as my argument has always been that He is ultimately responsible for humans exercising their free will.

I would also be interested in your definitions of evil and benevolence. If you are hazarding that there is something wrong with the set up then we can be pretty sure you have a better one in mind. What is it ?

Here is one definition of benovolence taken from a religious site:

The disposition to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness; the love,of mankind, accompanied with a desire to promote their happiness.
The benevolence of God is one of his moral attributes; that attribute which delights in the happiness of intelligent beings. "God is love." 1 John 4.

https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/benevolence.html
As being relevant to what we are discussing, I find that quite acceptable.

As regards evil, I would suggest there are basically two forms. This site, as it appertains to this discussion, seems quite reasonable to me.

Moral evil is evil that is caused by human activity. Murder, rape, robbery, embezzlement, hatred, jealousy, etc., are all moral evils. When people, created in the image of God, choose to act in defiance of God’s law, the result is moral evil. Moral evil can also be linked to inaction—to purposefully ignore a cry for help is a moral evil.
Natural evil is that which causes pain and suffering to humanity but which is not due to direct human involvement. Congenital diseases, tsunamis, earthquakes, drought, and famine are all cases of natural evil. There is no morality involved in such events.

https://www.gotquestions.org/natural-moral-evil.html

As to what can be improved,  I have already given you examples in past posts: tsunamis, leukemia, moors murderers, smallpox, diabetes. How many more examples do you want?

[jeremyp]

Not sure what you mean by "want to believe". Are you saying that you think that people can choose their beliefs?

Evidence of what? Do you mean lack of repeatable, testable objective evidence for a supernatural entity? As opposed to subjective evidence that a theist interprets as evidence for a supernatural entity?

The evidence shows that people who have a set point of view will use all kinds of techniques to distort their perception of reality to fit their preconceptions. They don't do it consciously and it's not limited to religious people. You've heard of terms like confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance I presume.

In terms of the evidence that God is a bastard: well the Bible portrays pretty much as one and, if you assume he exists, the evidence of day to day events tells us he is one too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The evidence shows that people who have a set point of view will use all kinds of techniques to distort their perception of reality to fit their preconceptions. They don't do it consciously and it's not limited to religious people. You've heard of terms like confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance I presume.

In terms of the evidence that God is a bastard: well the Bible portrays pretty much as one and, if you assume he exists, the evidence of day to day events tells us he is one too.

So are you saying that morality is real? And this reality is being distorted? And know what's really right and wrong?Even though it has been said that we can't know that until the end of history?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The evidence shows that people who have a set point of view will use all kinds of techniques to distort their perception of reality to fit their preconceptions. They don't do it consciously and it's not limited to religious people. You've heard of terms like confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance I presume.

Your point of view about what - morals? And what reality are you referring to in relation to morals?

Your point of view on morals would presumably be formed based on your perception of reality. Are you saying you think can people decide to perceive someone else's reality instead of their own? How would you determine which reality is real?

In terms of the evidence that God is a bastard: well the Bible portrays pretty much as one and, if you assume he exists, the evidence of day to day events tells us he is one too.

Sounds like that's your set point of view and your perception of reality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If God is all good(omnibenovolent)  and there is evil in the world, then either a) God is not omnipotent or b) God is not omniscient  or c)God is not ever present or d) there is no God. Not sure what you mean by 'freedom to the universe' but if you are talking about free will in the Biblical sense, then an omnibenovolent God would have eliminated the evils that spring from it as my argument has always been that He is ultimately responsible for humans exercising their free will.

Here is one definition of benovolence taken from a religious site:https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/benevolence.html
As being relevant to what we are discussing, I find that quite acceptable.

As regards evil, I would suggest there are basically two forms. This site, as it appertains to this discussion, seems quite reasonable to me.https://www.gotquestions.org/natural-moral-evil.html

As to what can be improved,  I have already given you examples in past posts: tsunamis, leukemia, moors murderers, smallpox, diabetes. How many more examples do you want?

Omnipotent is doing what you like God though doesn't do the impossible. Omnibenevolent is?...........over to you.

None of this is atheist argument.

I'm more God is the God of maximum, the most high. That seems more biblical, it follows a lot of Anselm's work so god is maximally benevolent, Maximally powerful, maximally present and maximally knowing. It certainly covers the human perspective better. It deals with impossibilities too in that they do not become necessary as in some omnigod arguments.

[Enki]

Omnipotent is doing what you like God though doesn't do the impossible.

Didn't say He did. Indeed, I made that clear in post 604.

Omnibenevolent is?...........over to you.

Did you not read the definition I gave you then in post 637?

None of this is atheist argument.

Indeed not, it's an argument illustrating the  problem of those who hold to the idea of the God of the omnis, as I made clear from the beginning.

I'm more God is the God of maximum, the most high. That seems more biblical, it follows a lot of Anselm's work so god is maximally benevolent, Maximally powerful, maximally present and maximally knowing. It certainly covers the human perspective better. It deals with impossibilities too in that they do not become necessary as in some omnigod arguments.

That's up to you, but, for me, the many examples of human beings doing good things to prevent and alleviate suffering suggests that it wouldn't exactly be impossible for god to at least have done the same and prevent such suffering in the first place.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If God is all good(omnibenovolent)  and there is evil in the world, then either a) God is not omnipotent or b) God is not omniscient  or c)God is not ever present or d) there is no God. Not sure what you mean by 'freedom to the universe' but if you are talking about free will in the Biblical sense, then an omnibenovolent God would have eliminated the evils that spring from it as my argument has always been that He is ultimately responsible for humans exercising their free will.

Here is one definition of benovolence taken from a religious site:https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/benevolence.html
As being relevant to what we are discussing, I find that quite acceptable.

As regards evil, I would suggest there are basically two forms. This site, as it appertains to this discussion, seems quite reasonable to me.https://www.gotquestions.org/natural-moral-evil.html

As to what can be improved,  I have already given you examples in past posts: tsunamis, leukemia, moors murderers, smallpox, diabetes. How many more examples do you want?

Your link defining benevolence says one meaning is a disposition to do good. It does not define what "good" is. Nor does it suggest that the "omni" in omnibenevolence should be defined as keeping people in a permanent state of feeling happy or not allowing evil to exist in the world. Not allowing any evil is one possible interpretation. Alternatively benevolence could mean doing good by guiding people on how to learn to deal with evil that may follow from people having moral choices.

People who believe in a spiritual aspect to people's disposition may see good coming out of their unhappiness and if framed in a religious context will have a different perspective on the need for people to have moral choices or the good that can come from situations involving tsunamis, leukaemia, moors murderers, smallpox, diabetes. This would not usually seem contradictory and offensive to people with religious beliefs, although it might seem that way to someone who does not hold these beliefs. 

[Enki]

Your link defining benevolence says one meaning is a disposition to do good. It does not define what "good" is. Nor does it suggest that the "omni" in omnibenevolence should be defined as keeping people in a permanent state of feeling happy or not allowing evil to exist in the world. Not allowing any evil is one possible interpretation. Alternatively benevolence could mean doing good by guiding people on how to learn to deal with evil that may follow from people having moral choices.

Hi VG,

I used that particular definition in response to Vlad's question, and, as I was talking about the problems associated with a God of the omnis, it seemed reasonable to give a definition which most Christians would accept. Of course one could pick holes in it though. E.g. what exactly does 'kindness' entail, what is meant by 'intelligent beings'?

People who believe in a spiritual aspect to people's disposition may see good coming out of their unhappiness and if framed in a religious context will have a different perspective on the need for people to have moral choices or the good that can come from situations involving tsunamis, leukaemia, moors murderers, smallpox, diabetes. This would not usually seem contradictory and offensive to people with religious beliefs, although it might seem that way to someone who does not hold these beliefs.

I'm sure you are right in that many people who accept a God of the omnis would try to explain the obvious problems in the idea that such a God allows bad things to happen by emphasising the good things that can also come from the same. However, I simply repeat what I said in post 543 to Vlad:

If one believes in a god of the omnis then it's up to that person to explain how or why this god allows bad things to happen in the world, not me. So far I've not seen any convincing explanation. If you are one of those people then it's your problem, not mine.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi VG,

I used that particular definition in response to Vlad's question, and, as I was talking about the problems associated with a God of the omnis, it seemed reasonable to give a definition which most Christians would accept. Of course one could pick holes in it though. E.g. what exactly does 'kindness' entail, what is meant by 'intelligent beings'?

I'm sure you are right in that many people who accept a God of the omnis would try to explain the obvious problems in the idea that such a God allows bad things to happen by emphasising the good things that can also come from the same. However, I simply repeat what I said in post 543 to Vlad:

Hi Enki

Sure, you could argue that humans should not have the capability of moral choices and that they should only be able to do good. And to prevent any kind of sadness or bad feeling, people would never be ill or die and there would be an endless supply of resources. After all, that is the picture some people have drawn for heaven so why not have a permanent heaven? So I can see why some people would not find it a convincing argument to say that this blissful situation cannot be the normal daily experience for everyone.

My view would be that I'm not sure there is a need for gods if humans did not have any capacity for bad traits or for making moral choices e.g. between good and bad. Gods are one way of articulating the concept of a final accountability for moral choices. 

So in that context, I would think any higher power that did not allow bad things to exist in the world would make the concept of a higher power redundant. I think understanding/ experiencing suffering could in some people generate a feeling of gratitude for areas of their life that does not entail suffering, and this is one path that could lead to a belief in a higher power.

For gods to have any relevance, we would  need to understand loss or hardship. Or, for example, we would need to have more wealth and good fortune in comparison to others, and be required to make moral choices.  E.g. do you hoard it and feel entitled to it and make bad moral choices in order to keep from losing it, do you spend your time trying to maintain your wealth or do you spend your time and wealth helping people in the wider community who may be suffering even if it means depriving yourself of some of your own desires.

Of course you can make moral choices without inserting gods, but I don't see how inserting a god of the omnis would be workable without there still being a requirement for moral choices, in which case evil needs to exist, with a capacity for choosing good in the face of evil.   

[Enki]

Hi Vg,

Unfortunately for me this approach runs into major difficulties. Why would such a god create a world where suffering and moral choices aren't necessarily related at all? What about babies and very young children who are not yet capable of making such choices? What about the suffering of animals? What about the many instances of natural disasters that seemingly cause indiscriminate suffering and/or death? What about those who do not understand loss or hardship yet live their lives in comfort and well being? How has humanity been able to relieve or eradicate some of the natural forms of suffering when such a god could surely have done as well as humanity at the very least?

Yes, I understand that many people can find comfort in a belief and yes, it may help them to make seemingly moral decisions, and yes, it may help them to withstand and deal with the hardships of life, but I don't see why a person's moral outlook has to be predicated on the bad things in a world which has been created by such a god.

[Outrider]

I'm more God is the God of maximum, the most high. That seems more biblical, it follows a lot of Anselm's work so god is maximally benevolent, Maximally powerful, maximally present and maximally knowing. It certainly covers the human perspective better. It deals with impossibilities too in that they do not become necessary as in some omnigod arguments.

Sorry to interrupt, but doesn't that description of God leave ample space for fallibility? An omniscient God knows everything, but a maximally knowledgeable God has limits, and can therefore be questioned? Therefore 'mandates' from God, even if we accept that they've been transcribed/translated correctly, then they're just a viewpoint and there's always the scope for God to be wrong?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry to interrupt, but doesn't that description of God leave ample space for fallibility? An omniscient God knows everything, but a maximally knowledgeable God has limits, and can therefore be questioned? Therefore 'mandates' from God, even if we accept that they've been transcribed/translated correctly, then they're just a viewpoint and there's always the scope for God to be wrong?

O.

No, maximally means he knows all the knowledge that it is possible to know and more than anything else can know. How then can he questioned?

[Outrider]

No, maximally means he knows all the knowledge that it is possible to know and more than anything else can know. How then can he questioned?

If he knows everything, that's omniscience, surely? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're wanting to convey, here.

O.