omnibenevolent

[magnifier661]

who's making god give up powers? Why MUST he do anything, and be under constraint?

If this is an honest question, I would love to reply honestly.

I am using the concept of "free will", which would mean a decision without force. So God does have the power to control our will without constraint, but that isn't true "free will". So I believe that in order for him to give mankind true "free will" then he cannot use the powers that make him omniscience or omnipotent. Basically giving up "his free will" for mankind.

 

[magnifier661]

vengeful and benevolent do not go together.

jealous and benevolent do not go together.

There is no "context" to it, the bible says he murdered the first born sons of Egypt. A whole nation. That's an atrocity on the scale of the Nazis.

As Crowtrobot said "That is subjective" and it isn't "Absolute" as you are claiming.

And my subjective thinking is all will be in Heaven and live a blissful perfect life. And my subjective thinking values eternity at a much greater value than a few years.

 

[RR7]

If this is an honest question, I would love to reply honestly.

I am using the concept of "free will", which would mean a decision without force. So God does have the power to control our will without constraint, but that isn't true "free will". So I believe that in order for him to give mankind true "free will" then he cannot use the powers that make him omniscience or omnipotent. Basically giving up "his free will" for mankind.

so god isn't omniscient and omnipotent any longer then? He created man and gave that up, you're saying?

 

[magnifier661]

so god isn't omniscient and omnipotent any longer then? He created man and gave that up, you're saying?

I would say "yes" and this is only my logic. He may be potent and science in all other things, but can't when it comes to man's free will.

 

[Minstrel]

Um yeah... Like I also said "Knowing that he couldn't create us to live a sinless life".

Yeah, but that's not true (back when it was omnipotent, before you speculate that he gave up his powers). Omnipotence means it gets to set the rules. If you believe that god was never omnipotent, then your guesses are at least coherent, if not particularly more compelling than anyone making guesses.

 

[magnifier661]

Yeah, but that's not true (back when it was omnipotent, before you speculate that he gave up his powers). Omnipotence means it gets to set the rules. If you believe that god was never omnipotent, then your guesses are at least coherent, if not particularly more compelling than anyone making guesses.

That makes sense... It's a very good argument. But before I reply, I really need to focus. I'm really busy at work now, so I can't give you my full attention.

I will try and answer as best I can later.

 

[crowTrobot]

But as I keep saying over and over again, the command wasn't against man, it was against sin. This was before Christ's redemption of grace, and all those that suffered are with God.

I doubt when you think to yourself that the Holocaust was evil you're mentally checking qualifiers like "was it or was it not commanded by God against sin?" or "was it before or after the resurrection?"

 

[Denny Crane]

As Crowtrobot said "That is subjective" and it isn't "Absolute" as you are claiming.

And my subjective thinking is all will be in Heaven and live a blissful perfect life. And my subjective thinking values eternity at a much greater value than a few years.

I suppose you're right. If you're adolph hitler, genocide isn't such a bad thing. But it's not benevolent.

 

[magnifier661]

I doubt when you think to yourself that the Holocaust was evil you're mentally checking qualifiers like "was it or was it not commanded by God against sin?" or "was it before or after the resurrection?"

My qualifiers hold no difference in the end crow... As you have said before, all are very subjective and it's relation to what is actually good.

But as I wrote, if God actually sacrificed what makes him God and paid the price for all man, regardless of who you and I deem fit to reach Heaven, that only gives me reason that those qualifiers are beyond social reasoning.

God before or after resurrection isn't a qualifier for love when all go to Heaven.

 

[magnifier661]

I suppose you're right. If you're adolph hitler, genocide isn't such a bad thing. But it's not benevolent.

For you maybe, but as crowtrobot explained, it's only subjective. And as I explained, if all reach Heaven, then the point on how mankind reach Heaven is irrelevant. And it still doesn't lessen the value of an eternity in perfection regardless of what "works" man did to get there. Or even how God loved man enough to give them eternal peace unconditionally.

 

[magnifier661]

Yeah, but that's not true (back when it was omnipotent, before you speculate that he gave up his powers). Omnipotence means it gets to set the rules. If you believe that god was never omnipotent, then your guesses are at least coherent, if not particularly more compelling than anyone making guesses.

Philosophical reasoning is "man making guesses", just as one would guess what is truly moral. Or to go even further "what reasoning would God have to love us". Morality is a perception, which any philosophical understanding of its value is a guess. So using this as some argument is a blanket statement on anything we debate is valued as moral.

So as I explain what I truly believe is "good" is exactly what Dawkins or Harris argue what could be moral. Does there have to be an absolute answer? The answer that God gives us unconditional love? No and that's why we discuss.

Your response doesn't disprove or prove God's love. It's not anymore right or wrong. It's just a concept we can all discuss.

 

[magnifier661]

So let's summarize what I believe is what is my qualifier for God's omni benevolent. It seems this discussion took a left turn and we are losing sight on, what I believe, is true God's goodness.

God's unconditional love. The last couple pages of discussion hasn't proved or disproven that love.

It just went on some moral tangent on why would God kill or allow suffering as a reason to disqualify love. That's a very slippery slope. That would mean we can disqualify any one of us from being in love.

Even a small example can weaken the concept of love. Anyone posting in this forum knowing their wife, child or family needs our attention right now could be a subjective outliner. All the arguments above would give same warrant to any one of them that they haven't been in love because they haven't done the "subjective outliners" to prove their love is real.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Yeah, but that's not true (back when it was omnipotent, before you speculate that he gave up his powers). Omnipotence means it gets to set the rules. If you believe that god was never omnipotent, then your guesses are at least coherent, if not particularly more compelling than anyone making guesses.

Again, I think you're defining omnipotence according to your own understanding, and assuming that it is the only one. Your argument is similar to that which generates the "Can an omnipotent God create a rock so large that He can't lift it?" paradox. The very nature of the question presupposes an impossibility, and then impugns God's omnipotence in the face of the logical fallacy.

You appear to be saying that IF God is omnipotent, then He should have been able to create a universe in which humans have free will AND sin did not exist. Mags is (or seems to be) saying that God could have created a universe with no sin, but then humans would have no free will; and that creating a universe with free will NECESSITATES opening up the possibility of sin, because our will wouldn't truly be free if we didn't have the latitude to make choices that are at odds with His.

If I've misrepresented either position, please let me know.

 

[Sinobas]

Crowtbot asked me this question in another thread, but I believe my answer needs to be in its own thread.

So he asked what is omnibenevolent?

And with some thought I started asking myself this question. What makes God good?

One can use silly cliche like "forbid to lie", or other various human traits that we used to try to make sense of everything. But what does that matter? Why does a lion care less about how you felt when he's tearing your flesh from your skin to feed himself?!

What does any of this really matter?! Why would the sun care that it's ray beams life blood to our planet to feed the trillions, maybe infinite amount of life; yet it does?

So then it hit me.

Gods sacrifice to mankind...

The creator of all the heavens and earth, everything and anything couldn't create us to live a sinless life and give us "free will". That he would sacrifice the powers that make him omniscience or omnipotent so that man could have "free will". And that free will that maybe 99.9% would freely love God no matter what trials, tortures or harm that sin puts before him and still won't have that person stop and believe and love in God.

And what if 99.9% didn't believe in him or falls victim to sin, torment or harm; he's be willing to bet the entire existence of him, the universe and everything for that 0.1% that say "I love you as much as you love me".

That's omnibevelant. That is true love. That is true good. That is God

Then

So he creates beings that are capable of a certain range of behaviors. But then to punish them for it with eternal hellfire if they don't believe he incarnated as his own son and was tortured to death for our "sins"?

 

[magnifier661]

Mags is (or seems to be) saying that God could have created a universe with no sin, but then humans would have no free will; and that creating a universe with free will NECESSITATES opening up the possibility of sin, because our will wouldn't truly be free if we didn't have the latitude to make choices that are at odds with His.

If I've misrepresented either position, please let me know.

That is my position. Thank you for paying attention.

 

[magnifier661]

So he creates beings that are capable of a certain range of behaviors. But then to punish them for it with eternal hellfire if they don't believe he incarnated as his own son and was tortured to death for our "sins"?

I think you should read the entire thread before you ask me this question. I don't think no man is going to be punished for all eternity.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

That is my position. Thank you for paying attention.

Quick question: would I be correct in assuming that you view the story of Adam and Eve as solely allegorical rather than historical?

 

[magnifier661]

Quick question: would I be correct in assuming that you view the story of Adam and Eve as solely allegorical rather than historical?

I would say I'm agnostic with those stories, same with Noah. I think God would have the power to create life like Adam and Eve, but the logical side of me finds it hard to believe.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I would say I'm agnostic with those stories, same with Noah. I think God would have the power to create life like Adam and Eve, but the logical side of me finds it hard to believe.

The only reason I ask is that the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and "tree of life" aspects of that story are incompatible with your philosophy. By this I mean, God supposedly kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden after they ate of the ToKoGaE to prevent them from eating of the ToL. Based on that, it is reasonable to suggest that had he wanted Adam and Eve to remain sinless, he could have kicked them out of the garden prior to eating the forbidden fruit, thus preserving their innocence.

Just a thought...

 

[magnifier661]

The only reason I ask is that the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and "tree of life" aspects of that story are incompatible with your philosophy. By this I mean, God supposedly kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden after they ate of the ToKoGaE to prevent them from eating of the ToL. Based on that, it is reasonable to suggest that had he wanted Adam and Eve to remain sinless, he could have kicked them out of the garden prior to eating the forbidden fruit, thus preserving their innocence.

Just a thought...

I use "tree of knowledge", "Adam and Eve", or even "Noah" as more of "symbolism", like metaphors used in poetry to explain a feeling.

Maybe that's why those that use these "stories" against me really holds no weight. It could have easily not physically happening. That part of the Bible doesn't give me any proof that God loves or hates me.

 

[Minstrel]

Again, I think you're defining omnipotence according to your own understanding, and assuming that it is the only one. Your argument is similar to that which generates the "Can an omnipotent God create a rock so large that He can't lift it?" paradox. The very nature of the question presupposes an impossibility, and then impugns God's omnipotence in the face of the logical fallacy.

You appear to be saying that IF God is omnipotent, then He should have been able to create a universe in which humans have free will AND sin did not exist. Mags is (or seems to be) saying that God could have created a universe with no sin, but then humans would have no free will; and that creating a universe with free will NECESSITATES opening up the possibility of sin, because our will wouldn't truly be free if we didn't have the latitude to make choices that are at odds with His.

Right, I understand what mags is saying, but I've pointed out a couple of approaches to illustrating that "no sin" and "free will" can be compatible logically (human logic may or may not be the arbiter of what is and isn't theoretically possible, but it's all we've got), and therefore not really akin to "god making a rock so heavy god cannot lift it." In other words, I don't think I engaged in logical/semantic tricks.

Mags has never really addressed either except to essentially say that it could not be done. You responded to one of those approaches (god choosing, ahead of time, the moral universe arc in which humans all just happen to make the "best" choices) with a response that I still think is strange: "Maybe you misunderstand the scope of god's 'omnipotence.'" (I'm paraphrasing from memory, so let me know if I got your response wrong.)

I find it strange for a couple of reasons:

1. Anything "could" be and I've said a few times that if god is not omnipotent in the classical sense (truly all-powerful with no limits) then these constraints, like not being able to effect lack of sin and free will at the same time, can fit logically. You don't suggest a new scope to talk about, though, so the net effect seems to be to shut discussion down.

2. You've chastised others for diminishing god, something that you seem to feel must never be done, but suggesting that I essentially overstate the scope of god's omnipotence seems at odds with that.

If you don't think god is actually omnipotent (by the literal definition), then I'm fine with constraints that it has to work with or imperfect universes. Anyone who believes god is literally omnipotent, I believe, is creating a lot of logical inconsistencies. Which may be fine for someone with faith, but isn't for people who don't have faith.

I'm fine with accepting that people of faith have their faith. It doesn't bother me. But there's nothing to discuss in that. I feel that if people of faith want to engage people lacking faith on such matters, they do need to engage such people in the logical realm, because "You just need to have faith" clearly doesn't get us anywhere if we don't have any reason to have faith.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I use "tree of knowledge", "Adam and Eve", or even "Noah" as more of "symbolism", like metaphors used in poetry to explain a feeling.

Maybe that's why those that use these "stories" against me really holds no weight. It could have easily not physically happening. That part of the Bible doesn't give me any proof that God loves or hates me.

That was why I assumed that to be the case.

Out of curiosity, how do you decide which parts of the Bible you take literally, and which you take symbolically?

 

[magnifier661]

That was why I assumed that to be the case.

Out of curiosity, how do you decide which parts of the Bible you take literally, and which you take symbolically?

At first (when I got saved) I took the entire Bible literally. Then I just didn't agree with a lot of what was preached to me. It didn't help that my pastor at the time, whom I looked up to, left his wife for another woman.

So I started praying to God to give me enlightenment. I used my philosophical reasoning and the open minded approach to the entire bible. I feel confident that I was lead in the right direction.

As for what I believe is true mainly are 3 things.

1.) Man has and will continue to sin

2.) Jesus is God and lived a sinless life that died to destroy the binding of sin once and for all.

3.) God loves me

Everything else is just gravy

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Right, I understand what mags is saying, but I've pointed out a couple of approaches to illustrating that "no sin" and "free will" can be compatible logically (human logic may or may not be the arbiter of what is and isn't theoretically possible, but it's all we've got), and therefore not really akin to "god making a rock so heavy god cannot lift it." In other words, I don't think I engaged in logical/semantic tricks.

Mags has never really addressed either except to essentially say that it could not be done. You responded to one of those approaches (god choosing, ahead of time, the moral universe arc in which humans all just happen to make the "best" choices) with a response that I still think is strange: "Maybe you misunderstand the scope of god's 'omnipotence.'" (I'm paraphrasing from memory, so let me know if I got your response wrong.)

I find it strange for a couple of reasons:

1. Anything "could" be and I've said a few times that if god is not omnipotent in the classical sense (truly all-powerful with no limits) then these constraints, like not being able to effect lack of sin and free will at the same time, can fit logically. You don't suggest a new scope to talk about, though, so the net effect seems to be to shut discussion down.

2. You've chastised others for diminishing god, something that you seem to feel must never be done, but suggesting that I essentially overstate the scope of god's omnipotence seems at odds with that.

If you don't think god is actually omnipotent (by the literal definition), then I'm fine with constraints that it has to work with or imperfect universes. Anyone who believes god is literally omnipotent, I believe, is creating a lot of logical inconsistencies. Which may be fine for someone with faith, but isn't for people who don't have faith.

I'm fine with accepting that people of faith have their faith. It doesn't bother me. But there's nothing to discuss in that. I feel that if people of faith want to engage people lacking faith on such matters, they do need to engage such people in the logical realm, because "You just need to have faith" clearly doesn't get us anywhere if we don't have any reason to have faith.

I apologize if I've come across at any time as chastising anyone; that was never my intention, and certainly not how I want to be perceived. My only desire when entering into these discussions is to try to introduce perspectives that might bridge the gap between what appear to be two diametrically opposed positions. That's where I'm coming from on the "scope of omnipotence" aspect; that perhaps it's our concept of omnipotence that is flawed, rather than God's omnipotence itself.

But I'm certainly not trying to shut down discussion, any more that Socrates did when he questioned people's understanding of concepts like "love" and "truth"; rather, by asking the question or making the suggestion, I desire to expand the discussion to explore other ways of understanding the term. If I were to "suggest a new scope", as you say, then I feel I would be limiting the discussion to my suggestion only, and that's not what I'm looking to do.

In any case, I'm sorry that my attempts to open avenues to reconcile logic, semantics, and scripture have come across poorly. I'll go ahead and bow out now.

 

[Minstrel]

I think you're interpreting my post a lot more harshly than I meant it, Platypus. I didn't mean to say you intended to shut discussion down, which is why I said that it ends up being the "net effect" (rather than "your intention seems to be"). Also, the chastising I also didn't mean as some kind of vicious attack, just that you seemed to have strong feelings on it. I was thinking of this post:

I agree with you--which is why I told RR7 that to try to hold God to any standard is laughable. That minimization of God is essentially the basis for most atheists arguments against Him.

I realize you were talking, there, about something a bit different...placing our standards on god's moral performance (if I recall correctly), but the second line seems to be chastisement of "most atheists."

Again, I think you're misinterpreting my tone. I wasn't criticizing you, just explaining why I found your previous response to me odd. I've never had any problems with how you debate or discussing anything with you, and I've never minded the Socratic method of questioning. But the reason I was surprised that you didn't suggest a "new scope," is because I was left at a bit of a loss as to what "omnipotent" could/should mean if not unlimited in scope of power, since that's the traditional meaning. I was hoping you had something in mind for that.

 

[magnifier661]

I was hoping you had something in mind for that.

Well wouldn't omnipotent mean "all powerful"? So in other words, having total control of everything that exists? And if you are considering the agnostic approach, that would mean the entire universe (matter, space and time).

And let's say that decision to make a being "man" with its own free will, that would suggest that giving that up before the moment of the Big Bang? And you can still control of the universe, because you created it, but the spirit "of God" is now excluded from the universe "physical".

In other words... Our self has two parts. The one of this universe "physical world" and the one of the spirit "God" which God cannot control.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I think you're interpreting my post a lot more harshly than I meant it, Platypus. I didn't mean to say you intended to shut discussion down, which is why I said that it ends up being the "net effect" (rather than "your intention seems to be"). Also, the chastising I also didn't mean as some kind of vicious attack, just that you seemed to have strong feelings on it. I was thinking of this post:



I realize you were talking, there, about something a bit different...placing our standards on god's moral performance (if I recall correctly), but the second line seems to be chastisement of "most atheists."

Again, I think you're misinterpreting my tone. I wasn't criticizing you, just explaining why I found your previous response to me odd. I've never had any problems with how you debate or discussing anything with you, and I've never minded the Socratic method of questioning. But the reason I was surprised that you didn't suggest a "new scope," is because I was left at a bit of a loss as to what "omnipotent" could/should mean if not unlimited in scope of power, since that's the traditional meaning. I was hoping you had something in mind for that.

Not at all a chastisement--just an observation.

My thought about omnipotence is that it is "limited" (for lack of a better word) by inviolable absolutes. For instance, if God IS truth, then God cannot lie; that would be a violation of His very nature. To me, that doesn't make Him any less omnipotent; it's just an acknowledgement of an an absolute that cannot be violated. Based on that notion, I would then posit that one would have to identify and understand what those inviolable absolutes are in order to properly understand the scope of omnipotence.

I don't know how one defines the concept of an inviolable absolute. Principles that exist outside of this dimension? I don't know. I just kind of view it like the old explanation of pornography: I know them when I see them. Except I can't even be that certain...

 

[Minstrel]

My thought about omnipotence is that it is "limited" (for lack of a better word) by inviolable absolutes. For instance, if God IS truth, then God cannot lie; that would be a violation of His very nature. To me, that doesn't make Him any less omnipotent; it's just an acknowledgement of an an absolute that cannot be violated. Based on that notion, I would then posit that one would have to identify and understand what those inviolable absolutes are in order to properly understand the scope of omnipotence.

I don't know how one defines the concept of an inviolable absolute. Principles that exist outside of this dimension? I don't know. I just kind of view it like the old explanation of pornography: I know them when I see them. Except I can't even be that certain...

I think I understand what you're saying; you're saying (if I understand you correctly) that holding two directly contradictory concepts at the same time is an impossibility in an absolute sense (though even that we don't know--it certainly is by human logic, but we don't know that everything is constrained by human logic...there are scientific concepts that seem to violate our concepts of logic, like that even true vacuum is a "something" from which other things can emerge).

But I'm fine with that sort of limit on god...I've never used "if god is omnipotent, it can both lie and tell the truth at the same time" or "...god can be a square circle" or "...god can create a stone so heavy even god cannot lift it" as arguments. However, I don't feel like "no sin" and "free will" are directly contradictory for reasons I've given before.

 

[magnifier661]

However, I don't feel like "no sin" and "free will" are directly contradictory for reasons I've given before.

If we are to use "God" as an exhibit, then your reason is sound. Obviously if God doesn't sin, then it's entirely possible.

I think this is what creates the parody with man. And mind you, this is only a philosophical concept.

Man is flesh first, which is bound by the natural world. Basically, the natural world that has sin. God has the power to live without sin, even in the natural world, but could only create a second part of man "the spirit" to have God's moral compass pre-programmed in man.

So even though life could be created without sin, using 100% of God's spirit, it is limited by the temptations of the flesh 100% in the natural world.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

However, I don't feel like "no sin" and "free will" are directly contradictory for reasons I've given before.

And that appears to be where you and Mags fundamentally disagree, based on the breakdown I have above.