Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[jeremyp]

God didn't create disease and death, these resulted from not being able to eat from the tree of life.

So disease and death arose spontaneously when God denied Adam and Eve access to the Tree of Life and God did nothing to stop it

Also we should ask whether a world in which we are programmed to do what God says would be good in any sense.

What's it like in Heaven?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But given that you don't have anyone you're asserting isn't alienated, you have nothing to demonstrate that it's a valid concept in the first place.

Alienation not a thing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1) No one, as far as I know, suggested that God creates disease as an end in itself.

It seems to me it is the nub and the nexus of the argument...Yours included.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Alienation not a thing?

In this context, no. To show alienation from something you'd need to demonstrate first that that something exists at all - something no-one here has come close to doing.   

Hence I am no more alienated from your claim of a god than you are alienated from my claim of leprechauns.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad.

If you want to attempt definitions of “omnipotent”, “omniscient” etc other than the standard ones then you’ll need to tell us what they are – “omnipotent = all powerful, only not when that doesn’t suit me” or some such perhaps?

For any given words there are usually different definitions so let's start with Omni, derived from the latin. When proponents or opponents of the ''God of the Omnis'' for instance talk about omnipotence do they mean a God that can do literally everything including the absurd or impossible...or do they mean just the possible? Or does it mean all the power there can possibly be derives from God Similarly, since Benevolence is a felt thing or a subjective emotion there must be as many definitions of it as there are people

When you posit a god who could have prevented disease but decided not to, that makes him a monster.

Omnimonstrous and maybe just monstrous suffers from the same definitional problems as omnibenevolence in that it is immeasureable, and often felt and subjective. But for those who hold to moral realism or even people like yourself who do when it suits let us examine God. He creates potential and that which has potential. Is that in itself a monstrous thing? If not how far along the heirarchy does it become monstrous?

So why create systems that go wrong?

If we have ruled out physical design and specific creation at any level then we can't think of anything going wrong. I think you mean how did man go wrong? By making the wrong moral choice since we cannot say physics can go wrong.
So where are you getting your idea of something going wrong from?
 

 And yet you assert there to be just such “absurd things” – ie, “miracles”.
 

Are miracles illogical though? Answer nowhere near as absurd as Square circles, black being the same as white, infinite regression, composite necessary beings, circular heirarchies, contingency without necessity etc

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

In this context, no. To show alienation from something you'd need to demonstrate first that that something exists at all - something no-one here has come close to doing.   

Hence I am no more alienated from your claim of a god than you are alienated from my claim of leprechauns.

Non sequitur to Outrider's expressed question whether alienation is a valid concept.

You've called God monstrous so either you are right and people who don't are alienated from the truth or the other way round.
Are Leprechauns monstrous Hillside....or can't you say because that would admit to the possibility of another category fuck?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well there's a distinction without a difference. If god exists and is omniscient, then it would have known that disease was the inevitable consequence of creating the universe that way, and if it is omnipotent, then it could have created a universe without that inevitability. It therefore directly and deliberately created disease.

I disagree and most people think God is responsible for somebody who say murders someone in the same sense that the parents of the murderer are responsible for that murder. i.e. not directly. Whose right? Foreknowledge is not foreordination.

[jeremyp]

I disagree and most people think God is responsible for somebody who say murders someone in the same sense that the parents of the murderer are responsible for that murder. i.e. not directly. Whose right? Foreknowledge is not foreordination.

If I knew that the son I was about to conceive was going to murder every first born son in Egypt, I'd wear a condom.

[Stranger]

I disagree and most people think God is responsible for somebody who say murders someone...

That's another subject and another argument that involves the mythical idea of 'free will' but is irrelevant to the existence of disease which is right there in the basic 'design' of life itself.

Whose [sic] right? Foreknowledge is not foreordination.

Since the example has bugger all to do with the existence of disease, it doesn't matter in this context. You've simply ignored my point entirely. Perhaps you'd like another go? Here it is again:

If god exists and is omniscient, then it would have known that disease was the inevitable consequence of creating the universe that way, and if it is omnipotent, then it could have created a universe without that inevitability. It therefore directly and deliberately created disease.

[Outrider]

Alienation not a thing?

You have no way to know, given that your assertion is that every possible example of humanity that you come across suffers from it, so how do you differentiate between people alienated from gods and, just, like, people in a reality where gods don't exist?

In order to show the quality, you'd need to be able to identify differences between people with and without it, and you can't do that.

So, alienation as a general concept (say, people alienated from their peer groups in schools, or alienated from their communities) exists, yes, but your contention of a universal alienation from gods... it's impossible to say.

O.

[Outrider]

I disagree and most people think God is responsible for somebody who say murders someone in the same sense that the parents of the murderer are responsible for that murder. i.e. not directly.

But then most people accept the notion of free will...

Whose right?

Whose right to what?

Foreknowledge is not foreordination.

If you're the creator who is responsible for introducing that particular instance of reality instead of any of the other innumerable potential ones, then yes it is.

O.

[Stranger]

When proponents or opponents of the ''God of the Omnis'' for instance talk about omnipotence do they mean a God that can do literally everything including the absurd or impossible...or do they mean just the possible?

I think it's fairly standard to assume that an omnipotent god could do literally anything that isn't self-contradictory. There are, of course, problems with that, but it really isn't up to people who don't believe to sort those out.

Basically, you need to define what you mean. If you have a definition that's actually relevant, then go ahead and post it.

Omnimonstrous...

Start with a massive straw man, eh?

...and maybe just monstrous suffers from the same definitional problems as omnibenevolence in that it is immeasureable, and often felt and subjective. But for those who hold to moral realism or even people like yourself who do when it suits let us examine God. He creates potential and that which has potential. Is that in itself a monstrous thing?

The point is that an omniscient and omnipotent god doesn't just create a potential, since it already knows how that 'potential' will play out.

As for subjectivity, well I'd really like to see you defend any human that had caused even a fraction of the suffering that the existence of disease has throughout history, or who could easily have prevented it but chose not to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

For any given words there are usually different definitions so let's start with Omni, derived from the latin. When proponents or opponents of the ''God of the Omnis'' for instance talk about omnipotence do they mean a God that can do literally everything including the absurd or impossible...or do they mean just the possible? Or does it mean all the power there can possibly be derives from God Similarly, since Benevolence is a felt thing or a subjective emotion there must be as many definitions of it as there are people

A “god of the omnis” is your claim, so it’s your job to tell us what you mean by it. If though by “omniscient” you actually mean “knows lots of things, but not the consequences of his actions” or some such that’s a fundamental redefinition of the term, and it’s special pleading to boot.   

Omnimonstrous and maybe just monstrous suffers from the same definitional problems as omnibenevolence in that it is immeasureable, and often felt and subjective. But for those who hold to moral realism or even people like yourself who do when it suits let us examine God. He creates potential and that which has potential. Is that in itself a monstrous thing? If not how far along the heirarchy does it become monstrous?

Gibberish. If someone plants a bomb in a crowded railway station and then walks way, he’s responsible for the carnage that ensues. That’s what your god story entails when he sets in train “creations” that lead eventually to babies having brain cancer. 

If we have ruled out physical design and specific creation at any level then we can't think of anything going wrong.

Non sequitur. “…physical design and specific creation” is still your claim, and it goes wrong because babies get brain cancer as a result.   

I think you mean how did man go wrong?

Then, as so often, you think wrongly. I meant how did the god of your story go wrong.

By making the wrong moral choice since we cannot say physics can go wrong.

So where are you getting your idea of something going wrong from?

So babies get brain cancer because other people make wrong moral choices?

Is that really what you want to claim?
 

Are miracles illogical though?

Yes.

Answer nowhere near as absurd as Square circles, black being the same as white, infinite regression, composite necessary beings, circular heirarchies, contingency without necessity etc

1. Category error. You’ve cheated by lumping together logical impossibilities (eg square circles) with logical possibilities (eg contingency without necessity).

2. What scale of illogicality are you applying here that makes you think someone being actually dead for a bit and then alive again for example is less absurd than any other absurd claim?

Once again, your inability to reason is letting you down here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Non sequitur to Outrider's expressed question whether alienation is a valid concept.

No it isn’t. Try looking up the meaning of “non sequitur” to see where you’ve gone wrong.

Alienation is a valid concept in some contexts, and not a valid concept in other contexts.   

You've called God monstrous so either you are right and people who don't are alienated from the truth or the other way round.

What are you even trying to say here? The god of your faith claim would be monstrous if the faith claim was true because of the consequences of his actions. It's simple enough.   

Are Leprechauns monstrous Hillside....

No.

…or can't you say because that would admit to the possibility of another category fuck?

I can say because according to my faith claim leprechauns don’t cause monstrous consequences by their actions. According to your faith claim “god” though that god does cause monstrous consequences by his actions.

The difference shouldn’t be difficult to grasp. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A “god of the omnis” is your claim, so it’s your job to tell us what you mean by it. If though by “omniscient” you actually mean “knows lots of things, but not the consequences of his actions” or some such that’s a fundamental redefinition of the term, and it’s special pleading to boot.   

Gibberish. If someone plants a bomb in a crowded railway station and then walks way, he’s responsible for the carnage that ensues. That’s what your god story entails when he sets in train “creations” that lead eventually to babies having brain cancer. 

Non sequitur. “…physical design and specific creation” is still your claim, and it goes wrong because babies get brain cancer as a result.   

Then, as so often, you think wrongly. I meant how did the god of your story go wrong.

So babies get brain cancer because other people make wrong moral choices?

Is that really what you want to claim?
 
Yes.

1. Category error. You’ve cheated by lumping together logical impossibilities (eg square circles) with logical possibilities (eg contingency without necessity).

2. What scale of illogicality are you applying here that makes you think someone being actually dead for a bit and then alive again for example is less absurd than any other absurd claim?

Once again, your inability to reason is letting you down here.

I am not a proponent of the God of the philosophers AKA the God of the Omnis and have said so at length on this forum.

It is you who has been conflating and confusing something you find hard to believe if at all and logical impossibility.
You still suffer from projecting your own shortcomings onto others.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I am not a proponent of the God of the philosophers AKA the God of the Omnis and have said so at length on this forum.

No you haven’t but in any case which of the omnis are you now ditching – some of them or all of them? How are you deciding which to bin, and by how much – for omniscience for example, are you now opting for, say, “my god is smarter than Stephen Hawking but not smart enough to know the systems he created would lead to brain cancer in babies” or some such?

Do tell. 

It is you who has been conflating and confusing something you find hard to believe if at all and logical impossibility.

Lying about that doesn’t get you off the hook here. I (and others) have told you many times where you go wrong with your “necessity/contingency” fallacy of composition for example, but you always just run away when it’s done. That though doesn’t mean that your mistake goes away.
 

You still suffer from projecting your own shortcomings onto others.

Do you have an argument to make, or just more groundless assertions like this one?

Your various other avoidances of the arguments that undid you are noted.

[SteveH]

But then most people accept the notion of free will...

People who deny free will on philosophical grounds exemplify Orwell's assertion that “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool".

[Stranger]

People who deny free will on philosophical grounds exemplify Orwell's assertion that “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool".

• An assertion, as you say.
• A rather obvious ad pop fallacy.
• Rejection of 'free will', to the extent people do, is on the grounds of basic logic - something that people very often get very wrong. Even those that should know better, let alone 'ordinary' people. It is a skill that one has to learn.
• Depends what they think 'free will' means. If they think they can do whatever they want, they are right.
• Philosophers such as Dennett argue strongly that 'free will' does exist in the "only way worth having".
• The rejection of 'free will' is in the self-contradictory sense of thinking that you could have done differently without such difference being random.

Think that about covers it....

[Enki]

It seems to me it is the nub and the nexus of the argument...Yours included.

In evolutionary terms the flourishing of any disease basically depends on its survival potential. The argument as to whether your God created diseases to be ends in themselves or not seems rather a futile one to me. It doesn't matter as to whether He/She/It created diseases as ends in themselves, the bottom line is that, according to your religion, your God still created them, and, therefore, the three alternatives I posited in post 331 still apply.

[Stranger]

In evolutionary terms the flourishing of any disease basically depends on its survival potential. The argument as to whether your God created diseases to be ends in themselves or not seems rather a futile one to me. It doesn't matter as to whether He/She/It created diseases as ends in themselves, the bottom line is that, according to your religion, your God still created them, and, therefore, the three alternatives I posited in post 331 still apply.

Yes, in fact, if you think that god deliberately created humans, then it deliberately created diseases. This applies whether you think god created the universe in a way that it would then produce humans by natural means, think it tinkered with evolution, or are crazy enough to think it magicked it all into existence 6000 years ago. The end result—the interdependent system of life on Earth—is as god intended.

[Outrider]

People who deny free will on philosophical grounds exemplify Orwell's assertion that “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool".

If that's the worst that someone can say about me, I'll take it 

O.

[jeremyp]

People who deny free will on philosophical grounds exemplify Orwell's assertion that “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool".

No they don't. That quote was a response to the idea that the American troops that came to Britain during WW2 did so to put down the inevitable revolution, not to invade German occupied France, which was clearly bonkers.

The arguments against free will are grounded in logic and scientific principles. I do not know what Orwell's views on free well were, but he would probably acknowledge that the arguments are not that bonkers.

[Spud]

That doesn't address my point.

The whole idea of 'free will' with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator, who would have effectively chosen all of our nature, nurture, and experiences by the way it decided to do its creation, is laughably absurd.

If Adam hadn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, then disease and death would not exist. Stop blaming God.

[Nearly Sane]

If Adam hadn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, then disease and death would not exist. Stop blaming God.

So a bloke eats an apple and your god decides to torture and kill people. You worship a psychopathic prick.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

If Adam hadn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, then disease and death would not exist. Stop blaming God.

Assuming for now that you actually think this bonkers juvenilia to be literally true, if your god didn’t want “Adam” to eat a “forbidden fruit” then why did this god put it there in the first place?