Omni-benevolence is not a Biblical trait of God, neither old nor new testament.
I didn't write that article. Didn't you see the name and the link? This guy makes some very valid points, but I'm sure there will always be someone who doesn't like it - people who are sympathetic to the idea of God, or the Judeo-Christian tradition, and that's fine with me. I have no desire to debate about this article. I just posted it as food for thought, so eat.
Nor new testament? I think most Christians would be very surprised by that! Isn't the whole of Christianity based on the idea of God's unconditional love of mankind?
Well, how about conditional benevolence (i.e. conditional on man's repentance of sin)? I think that would have to be a minimum requirement.
Zetetic, I was with you until the end of your post. I don't think I have any more or less fear than "people of science" or "non-believers" or whatever label you would use.
Heh heh, to tell ya the truth, I had to look up the meaning of theist and deist to find out the difference. I'd have to say that, based on the definitions at Dictionary.com, that both are a belief in God, but a theist accepts the idea of revelation while a deist rejects it, I am a theist. I am not an agnostic theist. I know what I believe. Do I claim this belief to be knowledge? No. But anyone who does is just delusional.
Alright hue-man, you, and also Richard Carrier, addressed a traditional idea of God. It's not as if there is only one. Even given that, my original post in this thread still points out the problems of Mr. Carrier's argument as it relates even to that idea of God. And you have yet to directly address my original rebuttal.
I do get that. And, like you, I reject certain conceptions of God, just obviously for a different reason. As for my conception of God, I do believe in the omnipotent and omniscient aspects. I just simply don't believe in the omni-benevolent bit. How anyone could think that of God is beyond me. Such people need to wake up and realize the world that we're living in. Moreover, they need to analize the lives that they're living.
Now, if you have a logical argument against the existence of God that doesn't include omni-benelovence then I'd love to see it. Omni-benevolence is not a Biblical trait of God, neither old nor new testament.
Nice try. You seem to be on a mission to try to catch me in my own words, as if that would disqualify my whole argument. You're above such desperate measures I believe. As for the good arguments, well, hate to break it to you, but the Anselm thread's argument for God was just as good as this thread's argument against. You may not agree with me on that, but your opinion of how good each argument of the matter is doesn't matter, because neither argument holds water. And neither argument is logical. But hey, nice try; in both cases the presented arguments are about as good as it gets.
There is no evidence and you make this statement knowing that full well. So, no, you are not willing to change your position.
Uumm... I'm a theist who isn't a fan of religion. What more can I say? Believing in God and believing what religions say about God is two different things. I can think for myself and am glad to do so.
I hope to heck that you're right. But I simply don't see the social trends that you do. The trends that I see are remarkably different. It seems like everytime we take one step forward into the light of bringing the public out of the dark age's mentality of traditional biases, we end up taking two steps back. And if you're going to consider the industrialized world, America leads the field. Well, religion is still hugely prominent in America today. Contrary to what the religious say, their numbers are still strong. According to what was posted in another thread on this forum recently, upwards of 60% of Americans claim at least some religious beliefs. That is not a society that is ready to lead the way to a fideism free future. And, let's face it, wherever we end up collectively, it is likely going to be America that is going to lead the way for the rest of the world.
Mysticism is not in conflict with parsimony. That which is mystical is that which there is no alternative view of. For instance, that we cannot ask why and expect an answer, that we can only ask how. The problems of significance and insignificance and the human desire for purpose, a purpose which does not present itself to us.
Science cannot speak of purpose, it cannot tell us why something is, only how it works. As Wittgenstein said(this is not the best translation):
6.4312 Not only is there no guarantee of the temporal immortality of the
human soul, that is to say of its eternal survival after death; but, in any
case, this assumption completely fails to accomplish the purpose for which
it has always been intended. Or is some riddle solved by my surviving for
ever? Is not this eternal life itself as much of a riddle as our present
life? The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside
space and time. (It is certainly not the solution of any problems of
natural science that is required.)
6.432 How things are in the world is a matter of complete indifference for
what is higher. God does not reveal himself in the world.
6.4321 The facts all contribute only to setting the problem, not to its
solution.
6.44 It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
exists.
6.45 To view the world sub specie aeterni is to view it as a whole--a
limited whole. Feeling the world as a limited whole--it is this that is
mystical.
6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be
put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at
all, it is also possible to answer it.
6.51 Scepticism is not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it
tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist
only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and
an answer only where something can be said.
6.52 We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been
answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there
are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.
6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the
problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long
period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been
unable to say what constituted that sense?)
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say
nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e.
something that has nothing to do with philosophy--and then, whenever
someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him
that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.
Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have
the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the
only strictly correct one.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me
finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them,
on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he
has climbed up on it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he
will see the world aright.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
Did God create those of us who are not his children? If he did, the 'children' analogy seems to break down.
I'm rewriting this because I had the whole post typed up but when I went to post it I got an error. Hopefully I'll remember it all.
hue-man,
I call myself a theist rather than a deist because I do believe that God reveals knowledge to man. I don't believe that he does it in a supernatural manner however. Also, if I recall correctly, deism bases reason for belief on logic. Well, my reason may be logical to me, but I doubt it would be logical to you, or to many others. And that's okay. Because my reason for belief is simply faith.
Now I do resent that you call it fidiesm faith. Fidiesm implies a desire to influence political opinion, I believe. Well, you know that I have made it quite clear that I don't believe faith or religion should play any role in politics or government.
We seem to have two different perceptions of agnosticism. I say that I do not know that God exists because there is no way to know. If a theist says that he knows it then he is lying, either to himself or someone else. So distinguishing non-agnostic theism as someone who believes that they know it is simply catering to the theist's lie. Rather, to say that I am a theist is to say that I know what I believe, which is that I believe God exists. An agnostic, on the other hand, doesn't seem to know what to believe.
I don't see the hypocrisy in saying that Richard Carrier's essay dealt with a certain conception of God but I have a different conception of him. How is that hypocritical? All I'm saying is that he's arguing against one thing but I believe something else.
As for the matter of God's benevolence, you say that if God is omnipotent but not omni-benevolent that he must be a f'd up guy. Well, doesn't that mean that if we don't do everything in our power, however limited that might be, to help other people that we are f'd up also? Ideally, I suppose it does. Ideally we should do everything that we can for people, regardless of who they are. But in a practical sense, no, it doesn't mean that we're f'd up. Because we all do the best that we can for ourselves and for those that we care about.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, (and this is something that even theists often don't agree with me on,) God doesn't care about everyone equally. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, the Bible says that some people are God's children and that some people are not. Well, like us, I imagine that God cares more about his own children than he does about others. Isn't this natural? Is God benevolent to his children? Yes. But he isn't always benevolent in a manner that we perceive as benevolence. (Spare the rod and spoil the child, sort of thing...)
Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the impression that because I read the Bible and that from that reading I have formulated a conception of God that I must be religious. Well, there's more to religion than just reading a book or believing in God. Suffice it to say that I have yet to encounter a religion that I agree with the dogma and traditions of. So I don't practice any religion.
I did laugh at the Scooby-doo bit, btw. Hey, it could happen.
As for the final part, I'll just leave it alone. Except to say again that, despite my doubt, I do hope you are right.
Question for hue-man:
You have said that someone who believes is an agnostic theist, and someone who does not believe is an agnostic atheist. So what would you call a person who says "The arguments are finely balanced, and I just can't make up my mind whether to believe or not"? This is clearly a different position from either that of the agnostic theist who says "there is no verifiable evidence, but I believe in God", or that of the agnostic atheist who says "there is no verifiable evidence, so I do not believe in God". Can't someone be a plain agnostic?
Take a good look at what has been going on in this thread: we have assumed that God can have human qualities, and we have assumed that language is capable of accurately expressing God.
Can God have human qualities? If not, let's drop the benevolence talk. Can language accurately express God? In not, let's drop the speculation about omniscience, ect.
Cool. A new word. I didn't know what "fideism" was.
Knowledge of God comes from experience of the divine, hue-man.
You go on to talk about an omniscient God: even that concept revolves around the human perspective. The language of man, according to every mystic tradition I've encountered, is insufficient in explanation God. It's all figurative, not literal.
Exactly what knowledge do you believe this obscure God of yours reveals to man?
I hear you, but logic is not subjective. It either is logical or it is not.
However, the burden of proof is not on us, it's on you, because you are claiming to believe in God's existence.
The hypocrisy comes in because all of you are making assumptions with your own conceptions of this obscure idea of God, and yet you're criticizing other people for making assumptions/conceptions of God.
fideism (or faith), or idealism, both of which are embarrassingly invalid positions that were discredited a long time ago.
Hypothetically speaking, if this God does exist, humans have collectively done more to benefit each other than your God ever has!
The fact that an omnipotent creator being would refuse to help a dying child, or a pregnant woman being murdered by her husband, and the fact that he created all of these conditions by omnisciently creating the universe, is f'd up.
Wow, talk about assumptions. You talk like you've literally met this guy.
It is only an idea, and not a physical reality, so how could you not make assumptions?
I've seen good, God worshiping people suffer greatly, so this argument is not only invalid, but unnecessary.
Knowledge of God comes from experience with the idea/conception of God, not with the physical experience of the existence of such a being.
The whole concept of God comes from the human perspective!
The fact that you use mystical traditions to support the statement that the language of man is insufficient to explain God is telling. You need language to make that very statement.
Indeed, it is figurative and not literal, because it is not real, meaning that it doesn't really physically exist.
It is as figurative as the existence of spider-man and superman, whose stories I happen to like better than Yahweh's and Jesus'.
At the end of the day, you cannot be a plain agnostic, because if you're not sure that you believe, or if you can't make up your mind, then that means that you do not believe, which makes you an atheist. It may make you a weak atheist, but an atheist nonetheless.
I fell that agnosticism is simply an invalid position born out of a misunderstanding of the issue, and I have personal experience with that. Agnosticism is really an epistemological claim that confuses itself for a metaphysical one.