ChatterBank3 mins ago
A Benevolent God
202 Answers
Having taken heed of some of the arguments in support of their benevolent god and Kromovacorum's posting on another thread, what are your suggestions for this benevolent god's mightiest works?
Here is mine:-
The boxing day tsunami
Here is mine:-
The boxing day tsunami
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jomifl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hmm...
At some level it probably is me a bit. Apart from the fact that I'm not Christian and never really have been. Some arguments against it, though, strike me as on poor footing and it's worth criticising both sides of the argument at times. Not seen an example in this thread but you see a few. I remember once getting slightly excited about the "Bible says pi = 3" point and then realised that this was a stupid argument.
There are evidently many people in this world who still believe in God, and I know a few of them. Friends, relatives, teachers, colleagues-to-be. Attack, attack, attack, that sometimes does go on (example: this thread, recycling an old argument) seem -- well, not pointless, perhaps, but certainly the arguments against religion deserve to be tested just as much as the arguments for.
So, yes, I will argue against any point on either side of this if I don't think it stands up to (my) scrutiny. Because, well, because I learn more about the debate sometimes by arguing against myself. It's not an uncommon tactic (There's a story that the Wright brothers of first-ever aeroplane fame switched sides in all their debates). And maybe even some of my own points have something to offer too, though that's for others to judge.
I've thought about this carefully for years, and it's not something I ever want to stop thinking about.
At some level it probably is me a bit. Apart from the fact that I'm not Christian and never really have been. Some arguments against it, though, strike me as on poor footing and it's worth criticising both sides of the argument at times. Not seen an example in this thread but you see a few. I remember once getting slightly excited about the "Bible says pi = 3" point and then realised that this was a stupid argument.
There are evidently many people in this world who still believe in God, and I know a few of them. Friends, relatives, teachers, colleagues-to-be. Attack, attack, attack, that sometimes does go on (example: this thread, recycling an old argument) seem -- well, not pointless, perhaps, but certainly the arguments against religion deserve to be tested just as much as the arguments for.
So, yes, I will argue against any point on either side of this if I don't think it stands up to (my) scrutiny. Because, well, because I learn more about the debate sometimes by arguing against myself. It's not an uncommon tactic (There's a story that the Wright brothers of first-ever aeroplane fame switched sides in all their debates). And maybe even some of my own points have something to offer too, though that's for others to judge.
I've thought about this carefully for years, and it's not something I ever want to stop thinking about.
Jim, //Some arguments against it, though, strike me as on poor footing and it's worth criticising both sides of the argument at times.//
If you think the argument against it is on a poor footing, counter it with a rational argument, not with spurious claims that can be easily and rationally debunked.
If you think the argument against it is on a poor footing, counter it with a rational argument, not with spurious claims that can be easily and rationally debunked.
Jim, the major problem with trying to sit on two stools is the gap between them. I suspect that basically you are a nice guy who doesn't want to offend those of a theistic tendency, well when have the theists ever shown that kind of consideration. Burning, stoning, disembowelling etc. have always been their stock in trade so they deserve no consideration other than not pursuing them when they are on the run.
so why didn't god put the continents where they needed to be in the
first place?
why put them in such a way that a massive natural disaster had to happen to put them in the place he wanted them?
surely hes so powerful its just a flick of his wrist to move a continent?
or did he just measure up wrong when he was planning his 6 day building spree and after he realised his error, he just bodged it?
i also don't see how the splitting of the continents is what has made us prosper and grow either - why wouldn't life have managed perfectly well as one big continent?
first place?
why put them in such a way that a massive natural disaster had to happen to put them in the place he wanted them?
surely hes so powerful its just a flick of his wrist to move a continent?
or did he just measure up wrong when he was planning his 6 day building spree and after he realised his error, he just bodged it?
i also don't see how the splitting of the continents is what has made us prosper and grow either - why wouldn't life have managed perfectly well as one big continent?
Jim: if God can't know things that haven't happened yet, then he can't know, for instance, about how you're going to die. He couldn't know that the holocaust would happen, he couldn't have known how his diseases weought havoc in Latin America.
So every time someone says a relatives death.is "in God's plan", this cannot be true because God couldn't have known it. He also couldn't have known about the one world government in Revelation (I'm writing on a phone so can't currently look up the exact pasage).
A God that is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent is simply a logical impossibility impossibility.
And your argument about projecting modern morals doesn't cut it either. God is frequently described by theists as one of love, and one of the famous 'Proofs' states that he is the source of morality. It just doesn't follow to argue that a God who knows all there is to know understands only as much about morality as a contemporary human.
So every time someone says a relatives death.is "in God's plan", this cannot be true because God couldn't have known it. He also couldn't have known about the one world government in Revelation (I'm writing on a phone so can't currently look up the exact pasage).
A God that is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent is simply a logical impossibility impossibility.
And your argument about projecting modern morals doesn't cut it either. God is frequently described by theists as one of love, and one of the famous 'Proofs' states that he is the source of morality. It just doesn't follow to argue that a God who knows all there is to know understands only as much about morality as a contemporary human.
I didn't see he can know what hasn't happened, I said (I think) he can only know what can be known. What that means I don't know -- it may be possible to know the future, or it may not.
We're constantly told that we can't hold the past to our current moral standards, either. I don't know if you accept this or not, but if you do then God ought to be the same -- can't hold Him up to "our" standards, since originally He set them anyway.
I'm probably fighting a losing battle -- I think it's one worth fighting, since even losing it would probably teach me something.
We're constantly told that we can't hold the past to our current moral standards, either. I don't know if you accept this or not, but if you do then God ought to be the same -- can't hold Him up to "our" standards, since originally He set them anyway.
I'm probably fighting a losing battle -- I think it's one worth fighting, since even losing it would probably teach me something.
I do accept that the past shouldn't be held to.modern moral standaeds. But I don't think that applies to God. Or at least not a God who is defined as omniscient or morally good. The reason for this is that if God is all-knowing, he by definition should have.a much greater understanding of morality than an average human. If he doesn't, he can't realy be said to be omniscient, because his knowledge only extends as far as human knowledge.
And this is even before you get to the very common put forward by theists such as William Lane Craig (and I think Aquinas but not sure) - that God is the source of objective moral values. If he's defined like this, then we are certainly justified in holding him to modern values, because he should know better.
I think it's also worth stressing that the arguments being put forward by myself and others.here do only apply if God is defined in certain ways (which he very commonly is). They don't really work against other definitions of God, which evoke different responses.
And this is even before you get to the very common put forward by theists such as William Lane Craig (and I think Aquinas but not sure) - that God is the source of objective moral values. If he's defined like this, then we are certainly justified in holding him to modern values, because he should know better.
I think it's also worth stressing that the arguments being put forward by myself and others.here do only apply if God is defined in certain ways (which he very commonly is). They don't really work against other definitions of God, which evoke different responses.
That presupposes that our morality is better than that of the past. Then again it probably is. Also indeed I'm probably arguing about a different definition of God which others may not recognise. Possibly not even myself, if it comes to that. I have no idea what God I'm arguing on behalf of. One which I don't believe in, certainly!
The syntax errors etc., don't matter.
The syntax errors etc., don't matter.
Therein lies the problem - the arguments we're putting forward are against a God defined as all knowing/powerful/good. If you want to define God as being none of those things, that's fine, but then in response I'd argue you're not left with something terribly godlike, and also not terribly consistent with any monotheistic religion I can think of.
As I say, one of the problems with discussing God is that the.goalposts can be moved very easily - and every time the definition of God changes, the opposing argument has to change too.
As I say, one of the problems with discussing God is that the.goalposts can be moved very easily - and every time the definition of God changes, the opposing argument has to change too.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Business & Finance8 mins ago
News8 mins ago
Jobs & Education14 mins ago
