This is a semantic shell game that doesn't make a difference; you can just run the same argument with evil acts replacing evil things. "God does no evil act" and "God is the only thing there is" together imply "no thing does an evil act," so no evil act takes place, so evil doesn't exist.
Good and evil, opposite directions of actions. Actions have intent and purpose, a vector. An action that God does for his purpose, moves the state of the universe in the +good direction. An action that God does against his purpose, moves the universe in the -good direction, aka evil. This can be simplified to if God has a purpose and we call this good, if he is also all powerful he also is able to undo his own work. This is to do evil... -good.. Ergo evil exists with only God in existence even if he never chooses it. If he has no purpose, he is not God and there is no good and no evil.
This particular use of semantics was useful to make a point and not intended as a constant moving target. Just responding to why your proof is wrong by trying to clarify what I believe good and evil to be in the simplest way I could.
I respectfully disagree that being "omnibenevolent" means you lack even the capacity for evil.
EDIT: I'll go further and say that with your definition your proof may well be right and I'm not sure such a being could create agents at all if he is not one himself. And since he couldn't do evil he wouldn't be one... But I don't believe in your definition, and believe that mine is not thwarted by your proof.
I know you put a lot of work into this.. But... I'm really not seeing the relevance. A major point is agency, and such a creation with no evil excludes agents. You destroy them all with this creation. Or at least never create them. Which is something I said he wasn't suppose to do in the first pass.
But you are still an agent; you still have a variety of choices in action available to you. If your complaint is that physical impossibility denying some actions to you renders you not an agent, then none of us are agents now, because we cannot choose to levitate or shoot lasers from our eyes or hold our breaths for hours. So you are an agent who can do no evil.
And that's the problem. If it's a good thing for you to pull the attacker off, then why doesn't God pull the attacker off the next time it happens, when you're not there? And if it'd be a bad thing for God to pull attackers off, then how can we possibly think that it's a good thing for us mere mortals to pull attackers off?
Because what is good for us is not identical to what is good for him. Apples and oranges.
Then it's a misleading equivocation to call what God does "good". It is an elementary error in philosophical writing to use the same term for two different concepts. God is not good, just as an apple is not an orange. He is something else.
I'm just going to nit pick here and say I prefer would not to may not.
Your argument is that it would be wrong for God to prevent evil because agency etc. In other words, he is not morally allowed to do it; he may not do it.
This is a semantic shell game that doesn't make a difference; you can just run the same argument with evil acts replacing evil things. "God does no evil act" and "God is the only thing there is" together imply "no thing does an evil act," so no evil act takes place, so evil doesn't exist.
Good and evil, opposite directions of actions. Actions have intent and purpose, a vector. An action that God does for his purpose, moves the state of the universe in the +good direction. An action that God does against his purpose, moves the universe in the -good direction, aka evil. This can be simplified to if God has a purpose and we call this good, if he is also all powerful he also is able to undo his own work. This is to do evil... -good.. Ergo evil exists with only God in existence even if he never chooses it. If he has no purpose, he is not God and there is no good and no evil.
There's a reason I said this doesn't make any difference, and that's because it doesn't make any difference. Okay, so every action can be assigned a "goodness vector" (never let's mind how incoherent that is) -- again, I repeat the same argument: in a state of affairs inhabited only by God, no action God does is ever assigned an evil "vector" -- in other words, despite the potential for evil that may be given by these "vectors," no actual evil act ever occurs. "Potential X" or "the capacity for X" is not the same as "X."
I respectfully disagree that being "omnibenevolent" means you lack even the capacity for evil.
However respectful your disagreement may be, it lacks substance. Bare assertions don't get us anywhere. It's not logically possible for an omnibenevolent being to do evil, because if he did, he would cease to be omnibenevolent -- his refrainment from said evil would make him more benevolent.
This particular use of semantics was useful to make a point and not intended as a constant moving target. Just responding to why your proof is wrong by trying to clarify what I believe good and evil to be in the simplest way I could.
EDIT: I'll go further and say that with your definition your proof may well be right and I'm not sure such a being could create agents at all if he is not one himself. And since he couldn't do evil he wouldn't be one... But I don't believe in your definition, and believe that mine is not thwarted by your proof.
Actually, I've left the definition of evil as somewhat of a free variable so as to cover all cases. Semantic evasion is pointless here because of the functional nature of the argument. All you and I have to agree on is that evil is something that God refrains from doing. (whether voluntarily or out of necessity) Once we agree that God refrains from evil, then the rest of the argument follows analytically.
BackBlast, I really wanted to jump in and help you out because I don't like the "pile on the new theist" tradition, and because Styrofoam02's strawmen are grating.
But, are you REALLY arguing that the potential for evil to exist is equivalent to evil existing?
I know that this is your attempt to make coherent someone else's argument, which wasn't a sound one to start with.
That said, "Ignoring the goodness of the deed" when the question is the goodness of a deed should be a warning sign that we're not moving in the right direction.
If the value of the thing increases based on the impact of the deed to the doer, then what value would God's actions have?
No, you misunderstand. The point is the woman voluntarily gave up that which was her livelihood. She gave all that she had to live on. She gave up her life, and kept nothing back for herself. Because of this, her contribution is greater than those who gave large sums but kept a great deal back for themselves.
The point of the story is not, "Deeds are only good if they're costly to you."
The point is what is what it means to be a follower of the Jesus movement. The woman does not hold anything back, voluntarily giving up her own life in piety to God. Contrast this to the rich man in Mark 10:17-24, who follows moral law to the letter and is clearly an observant Jew, but when it comes down to following Jesus and giving up his possessions, or keeping him and turning away from Jesus, he makes his choice.
Jesus elevates the woman who is willing to give up everything over the one who is observant to religious rituals and decrees but is unwilling to give up his or her attachment to goods or life.
I know that this is your attempt to make coherent someone else's argument, which wasn't a sound one to start with.
That said, "Ignoring the goodness of the deed" when the question is the goodness of a deed should be a warning sign that we're not moving in the right direction.
If the value of the thing increases based on the impact of the deed to the doer, then what value would God's actions have?
No, you misunderstand. The point is the woman voluntarily gave up that which was her livelihood. She gave all that she had to live on. She gave up her life, and kept nothing back for herself. Because of this, her contribution is greater than those who gave large sums but kept a great deal back for themselves.
The point of the story is not, "Deeds are only good if they're costly to you."
The point is what is what it means to be a follower of the Jesus movement. The woman does not hold anything back, voluntarily giving up her own life in piety to God. Contrast this to the rich man in Mark 10:17-24, who follows moral law to the letter and is clearly an observant Jew, but when it comes down to following Jesus and giving up his possessions, or keeping him and turning away from Jesus, he makes his choice.
Jesus elevates the woman who is willing to give up everything over the one who is observant to religious rituals and decrees but is unwilling to give up his or her attachment to goods or life.
Oh no, I get all that, and yes I was trying to make something incoherent, coherent.
I still hold to everything else I said though.
If (giving all you have) > (giving a small portion of what you have)
When can God's actions be ">" ?
When has God (given all he had)? When has God (given a small portion)?
These questions certainly apply when considering how they are to elevate God's actions, are they not?
Especially when considering the magnitude of scale associated with a being performing any DEED, who has what amounts to an immeasurable set of ABILITY.
God is all powerful, Universe creating powerful. What is healing the sick to God? What is calming a storm to God? Five dollars to a vagabond, or a thousand dollars to a zillionaire?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Oh no, I get all that, and yes I was trying to make something incoherent, coherent.
I still hold to everything else I said though.
If (giving all you have) > (giving a small portion of what you have)
When can God's actions be ">" ?
When has God (given all he had)? When has God (given a small portion)?
These questions certainly apply when considering how they are to elevate God's actions, are they not?
Especially when considering the magnitude of scale associated with a being performing any DEED, who has what amounts to an immeasurable set of ABILITY.
God is all powerful, Universe creating powerful. What is healing the sick to God? What is calming a storm to God? Five dollars to a vagabond, or a thousand dollars to a zillionaire?
How much is "a small portion" in the context of infinity? What counts as a lot in the context of infinity? It's a meaningless judgement.
If the source is immeasurable then judging the "cost" in terms of how much is lost from the source is an invalid axis on which to judge because it has no meaning. You can't apply a judgement system based on a finite resource to something that is infinite.
There is no way to judge the relative value of different points on a scale that goes to infinity. In this sense nothing an omnipotent being does costs it any more or less than anything else it does or doesn't do.
I know that this is your attempt to make coherent someone else's argument, which wasn't a sound one to start with.
That said, "Ignoring the goodness of the deed" when the question is the goodness of a deed should be a warning sign that we're not moving in the right direction.
If the value of the thing increases based on the impact of the deed to the doer, then what value would God's actions have?
No, you misunderstand. The point is the woman voluntarily gave up that which was her livelihood. She gave all that she had to live on. She gave up her life, and kept nothing back for herself. Because of this, her contribution is greater than those who gave large sums but kept a great deal back for themselves.
The point of the story is not, "Deeds are only good if they're costly to you."
The point is what is what it means to be a follower of the Jesus movement. The woman does not hold anything back, voluntarily giving up her own life in piety to God. Contrast this to the rich man in Mark 10:17-24, who follows moral law to the letter and is clearly an observant Jew, but when it comes down to following Jesus and giving up his possessions, or keeping him and turning away from Jesus, he makes his choice.
Jesus elevates the woman who is willing to give up everything over the one who is observant to religious rituals and decrees but is unwilling to give up his or her attachment to goods or life.
Oh no, I get all that, and yes I was trying to make something incoherent, coherent.
I still hold to everything else I said though.
If (giving all you have) > (giving a small portion of what you have)
When can God's actions be ">" ?
When has God (given all he had)? When has God (given a small portion)?
These questions certainly apply when considering how they are to elevate God's actions, are they not?
Especially when considering the magnitude of scale associated with a being performing any DEED, who has what amounts to an immeasurable set of ABILITY.
God is all powerful, Universe creating powerful. What is healing the sick to God? What is calming a storm to God? Five dollars to a vagabond, or a thousand dollars to a zillionaire?
God, in Christian beliefs, is an existence wholly different from humans (as pointed out, omnipotence, omniscience, etc).
Therefore, it is not necessarily true that morality for humans is the same as morality for God (and as you demonstrated, it actually cannot be).
Here is a good illustration of the difference that we apply in human society. We sometimes apply different standard to adults than we do to children based on a fundamental difference in their capacity. Generally they hold to the same guidelines, but there are exceptions. Take 21st century, mainstream morality on sex: just because morals dictate that pre-pubescent children having sex is bad, it does not follow that under the same system, adults having sex is bad or hypocritical. Adults and children do not always have equal comparisons, even along the same metric.
In the same way, the Christian God and humans do not always have equal comparisons along the same metric.
I know that this is your attempt to make coherent someone else's argument, which wasn't a sound one to start with.
That said, "Ignoring the goodness of the deed" when the question is the goodness of a deed should be a warning sign that we're not moving in the right direction.
If the value of the thing increases based on the impact of the deed to the doer, then what value would God's actions have?
No, you misunderstand. The point is the woman voluntarily gave up that which was her livelihood. She gave all that she had to live on. She gave up her life, and kept nothing back for herself. Because of this, her contribution is greater than those who gave large sums but kept a great deal back for themselves.
The point of the story is not, "Deeds are only good if they're costly to you."
The point is what is what it means to be a follower of the Jesus movement. The woman does not hold anything back, voluntarily giving up her own life in piety to God. Contrast this to the rich man in Mark 10:17-24, who follows moral law to the letter and is clearly an observant Jew, but when it comes down to following Jesus and giving up his possessions, or keeping him and turning away from Jesus, he makes his choice.
Jesus elevates the woman who is willing to give up everything over the one who is observant to religious rituals and decrees but is unwilling to give up his or her attachment to goods or life.
Oh no, I get all that, and yes I was trying to make something incoherent, coherent.
I still hold to everything else I said though.
If (giving all you have) > (giving a small portion of what you have)
When can God's actions be ">" ?
When has God (given all he had)? When has God (given a small portion)?
These questions certainly apply when considering how they are to elevate God's actions, are they not?
Especially when considering the magnitude of scale associated with a being performing any DEED, who has what amounts to an immeasurable set of ABILITY.
God is all powerful, Universe creating powerful. What is healing the sick to God? What is calming a storm to God? Five dollars to a vagabond, or a thousand dollars to a zillionaire?
God, in Christian beliefs, is an existence wholly different from humans (as pointed out, omnipotence, omniscience, etc).
Therefore, it is not necessarily true that morality for humans is the same as morality for God (and as you demonstrated, it actually cannot be).
Here is a good illustration of the difference that we apply in human society. We sometimes apply different standard to adults than we do to children based on a fundamental difference in their capacity. Generally they hold to the same guidelines, but there are exceptions. Take 21st century, mainstream morality on sex: just because morals dictate that pre-pubescent children having sex is bad, it does not follow that under the same system, adults having sex is bad or hypocritical. Adults and children do not always have equal comparisons.
In the same way, the Christian God and humans do not always have equal comparisons.
Yes, God and humans are different, apples and oranges...
However, according to Christian Beliefs, Jesus was teaching us what was moral to God.
So we can infer, that if Jesus is Lord, and he is teaching us what God wants, then we can see what God's morals look like.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I know that this is your attempt to make coherent someone else's argument, which wasn't a sound one to start with.
That said, "Ignoring the goodness of the deed" when the question is the goodness of a deed should be a warning sign that we're not moving in the right direction.
If the value of the thing increases based on the impact of the deed to the doer, then what value would God's actions have?
No, you misunderstand. The point is the woman voluntarily gave up that which was her livelihood. She gave all that she had to live on. She gave up her life, and kept nothing back for herself. Because of this, her contribution is greater than those who gave large sums but kept a great deal back for themselves.
The point of the story is not, "Deeds are only good if they're costly to you."
The point is what is what it means to be a follower of the Jesus movement. The woman does not hold anything back, voluntarily giving up her own life in piety to God. Contrast this to the rich man in Mark 10:17-24, who follows moral law to the letter and is clearly an observant Jew, but when it comes down to following Jesus and giving up his possessions, or keeping him and turning away from Jesus, he makes his choice.
Jesus elevates the woman who is willing to give up everything over the one who is observant to religious rituals and decrees but is unwilling to give up his or her attachment to goods or life.
Oh no, I get all that, and yes I was trying to make something incoherent, coherent.
I still hold to everything else I said though.
If (giving all you have) > (giving a small portion of what you have)
When can God's actions be ">" ?
When has God (given all he had)? When has God (given a small portion)?
These questions certainly apply when considering how they are to elevate God's actions, are they not?
Especially when considering the magnitude of scale associated with a being performing any DEED, who has what amounts to an immeasurable set of ABILITY.
God is all powerful, Universe creating powerful. What is healing the sick to God? What is calming a storm to God? Five dollars to a vagabond, or a thousand dollars to a zillionaire?
God, in Christian beliefs, is an existence wholly different from humans (as pointed out, omnipotence, omniscience, etc).
Therefore, it is not necessarily true that morality for humans is the same as morality for God (and as you demonstrated, it actually cannot be).
Here is a good illustration of the difference that we apply in human society. We sometimes apply different standard to adults than we do to children based on a fundamental difference in their capacity. Generally they hold to the same guidelines, but there are exceptions. Take 21st century, mainstream morality on sex: just because morals dictate that pre-pubescent children having sex is bad, it does not follow that under the same system, adults having sex is bad or hypocritical. Adults and children do not always have equal comparisons.
In the same way, the Christian God and humans do not always have equal comparisons.
Yes, God and humans are different, apples and oranges...
However, according to Christian Beliefs, Jesus was teaching us what was moral to God.
So we can infer, that if Jesus is Lord, and he is teaching us what God wants, then we can see what God's morals look like.
All Christians take from Jesus' teachings is that Jesus taught what is moral for humans to God. The inference you speak of is based off assumptions of probability. Laid out, it is like this:
P1: Jesus' parable shows what is moral for humans to God.
P2: What is moral for humans is usually what is moral for God.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus' parable definitely shows what is moral for God.
You are making a logical leap from P2 to the conclusion.
@brasswire
I'll stop you real fast. I did not use the term infinite, and I suggest we do NOT use the idea of infinite. It will help not the debate.
Like with infinite combos, I use MTG rules. i.e. an Arbitrarily Large Number.
Considering that we are talking about the Christian God, who possesses infinite goodness (omnibenevolence) and infinite power (omnipotence), you cannot assign an arbitrarily large number to replace infinity.
To do so is to put up a straw man since a googol does not equal infinity.
I know that this is your attempt to make coherent someone else's argument, which wasn't a sound one to start with.
That said, "Ignoring the goodness of the deed" when the question is the goodness of a deed should be a warning sign that we're not moving in the right direction.
If the value of the thing increases based on the impact of the deed to the doer, then what value would God's actions have?
No, you misunderstand. The point is the woman voluntarily gave up that which was her livelihood. She gave all that she had to live on. She gave up her life, and kept nothing back for herself. Because of this, her contribution is greater than those who gave large sums but kept a great deal back for themselves.
The point of the story is not, "Deeds are only good if they're costly to you."
The point is what is what it means to be a follower of the Jesus movement. The woman does not hold anything back, voluntarily giving up her own life in piety to God. Contrast this to the rich man in Mark 10:17-24, who follows moral law to the letter and is clearly an observant Jew, but when it comes down to following Jesus and giving up his possessions, or keeping him and turning away from Jesus, he makes his choice.
Jesus elevates the woman who is willing to give up everything over the one who is observant to religious rituals and decrees but is unwilling to give up his or her attachment to goods or life.
Oh no, I get all that, and yes I was trying to make something incoherent, coherent.
I still hold to everything else I said though.
If (giving all you have) > (giving a small portion of what you have)
When can God's actions be ">" ?
When has God (given all he had)? When has God (given a small portion)?
These questions certainly apply when considering how they are to elevate God's actions, are they not?
Especially when considering the magnitude of scale associated with a being performing any DEED, who has what amounts to an immeasurable set of ABILITY.
God is all powerful, Universe creating powerful. What is healing the sick to God? What is calming a storm to God? Five dollars to a vagabond, or a thousand dollars to a zillionaire?
God, in Christian beliefs, is an existence wholly different from humans (as pointed out, omnipotence, omniscience, etc).
Therefore, it is not necessarily true that morality for humans is the same as morality for God (and as you demonstrated, it actually cannot be).
Here is a good illustration of the difference that we apply in human society. We sometimes apply different standard to adults than we do to children based on a fundamental difference in their capacity. Generally they hold to the same guidelines, but there are exceptions. Take 21st century, mainstream morality on sex: just because morals dictate that pre-pubescent children having sex is bad, it does not follow that under the same system, adults having sex is bad or hypocritical. Adults and children do not always have equal comparisons.
In the same way, the Christian God and humans do not always have equal comparisons.
Yes, God and humans are different, apples and oranges...
However, according to Christian Beliefs, Jesus was teaching us what was moral to God.
So we can infer, that if Jesus is Lord, and he is teaching us what God wants, then we can see what God's morals look like.
All Christians take from Jesus' teachings is that Jesus taught what is moral for humans to God. The inference you speak of is based off assumptions of probability. Laid out, it is like this:
P1: Jesus' parable shows what is moral for humans to God.
P2: What is moral for humans is usually what is moral for God.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus' parable definitely shows what is moral for God.
You are making a logical leap from P2 to the conclusion.
I make no conclusions, logical or otherwise.
Read my posts. I use "IF" quite a bit.
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > B.
If you want to argue A > B is true, but only for humans and doesn't apply to the Lord, that's on you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
One last note here to contribute something rather than just poke logic holes:
It is very, very difficult to discredit all of Christianity by finding a logic hole in anything in the Bible. There are problems of translation from the original text, and there are whole denominations (notably, the Roman Catholic Church) that actively say parts of the Bible are outdated and not representative of the Word of God.
There are much easier, rational reasons for disbelief in Christian beliefs. Probably the easiest would be, if you are an empiricist, lack of empirical evidence. On top of that, there are numerous examples of institutional hypocrisy in churches. Once you enter theology (and arguing within the basic tenets of a religion), you will encounter much stiffer resistance. It is actually quite hard to refute Christian beliefs within that framework since they have been refined by very smart individuals over a couple thousand years.
@brasswire
I'll stop you real fast. I did not use the term infinite, and I suggest we do NOT use the idea of infinite. It will help not the debate.
Like with infinite combos, I use MTG rules. i.e. an Arbitrarily Large Number.
Isn't that just changing the definition to suit the argument though? Because if we're talking about an omnipotent being, one that is capable of creating an entire universe from nothing, then we are talking about infinity or at least something that cannot be measured. Not a "very, very large but ultimately finite" amount of something.
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > B.
Your use of "If" statements excuses nothing, and your simplification above is inaccurate (and tautological). Here is the simplified version of what you actually argued.
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > C.
You entered a strawman interpretation (C) of Jesus' words by applying what is moral for humans as what is moral for God.
Any argument contains premises and conclusions. They can be conditional, but they still have to follow logic.
I'm not saying God is or isn't infinite...I'm merely saying that once we introduce infinite to this debate, we kill it.
Just like going "infinite" in a game of magic (while possible) will in effect end the game, going "infinite" here, will in effect end the discussion.
Can we discuss anything, moral or otherwise, if all measurements of value must be compared to infinity?
Remember guys, I'm an anti-theist agnostic, not a believer. I don't have a dog in this fight.
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > B.
Your use of "If" statements excuses nothing, and your simplification above is inaccurate (and tautological). Here is the simplified version of what you actually argued.
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > C.
You entered a strawman interpretation (C) of Jesus' words by applying what is moral for humans as what is moral for God.
Any argument contains premises and conclusions. They can be conditional, but they still have to follow logic.
But this isn't the case. And no, I didn't enter a strawman.
YOU are the one changing the question.
The question was: if A > B, when can God A?
If giving all you can give is greater than giving a fraction. When/Can God give all he can give?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm not saying God is or isn't infinite...I'm merely saying that once we introduce infinite to this debate, we kill it.
Just like going "infinite" in a game of magic (while possible) will in effect end the game, going "infinite" here, will in effect end the discussion.
Can we discuss anything, moral or otherwise, if all measurements of value must be compared to infinity?
We do "go infinite" where Christian beliefs about God are concerned. Anything else is not Christian belief.
However, we are talking about the Christian God, YHWH, the God of Abraham, of Israel, El. This is not necessarily a Tri-Omni God. First, the term OMNIbenevolent is never used in the Bible. (Even if some modern "translations" have added it.
Even if I grant you that omnibenevolence is not a part of this conversation, omnipotence is fundamental to Christian beliefs about God. Considering you were asking us to compare things on a scale relative to one's own resources, omnipotence is the important part, not omnibenevolence.
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > B.
Your use of "If" statements excuses nothing, and your simplification above is inaccurate (and tautological). Here is the simplified version of what you actually argued.
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > C.
You entered a strawman interpretation (C) of Jesus' words by applying what is moral for humans as what is moral for God.
Any argument contains premises and conclusions. They can be conditional, but they still have to follow logic.
But this isn't the case. And no, I didn't enter a strawman.
YOU are the one changing the question.
The question was: if A > B, when can God A?
If giving all you can give is greater than giving a fraction. When/Can God give all he can give?
It is a strawman because A > B can only logically be concluded for humans, not God. You mischaracterize A > B in this small but important part. For your assertion, you must show that A > B even applies to God.
I'm not saying God is or isn't infinite...I'm merely saying that once we introduce infinite to this debate, we kill it.
Just like going "infinite" in a game of magic (while possible) will in effect end the game, going "infinite" here, will in effect end the discussion.
Can we discuss anything, moral or otherwise, if all measurements of value must be compared to infinity?
We do "go infinite" where Christian beliefs about God are concerned. Anything else is not Christian belief.
That's not what a real Scotsman would say.
However, we are talking about the Christian God, YHWH, the God of Abraham, of Israel, El. This is not necessarily a Tri-Omni God. First, the term OMNIbenevolent is never used in the Bible. (Even if some modern "translations" have added it.
Even if I grant you that omnibenevolence is not a part of this conversation, omnipotence is fundamental to Christian beliefs about God. Considering you were asking us to compare things on a scale relative to one's own resources, omnipotence is the important part, not omnibenevolence.
True.
But omnipotence is still logical (let's not get into creating burritos so hot he can't eat it)
Here we DO NOT disagree. In fact it is central to the OP's question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > B.
Your use of "If" statements excuses nothing, and your simplification above is inaccurate (and tautological). Here is the simplified version of what you actually argued.
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > C.
You entered a strawman interpretation (C) of Jesus' words by applying what is moral for humans as what is moral for God.
Any argument contains premises and conclusions. They can be conditional, but they still have to follow logic.
But this isn't the case. And no, I didn't enter a strawman.
YOU are the one changing the question.
The question was: if A > B, when can God A?
If giving all you can give is greater than giving a fraction. When/Can God give all he can give?
It is a strawman because A > B can only logically be concluded for humans, not God. You mischaracterize A > B in this small but important part. For your assertion, you must show that A > B even applies to God.
Demonstrate that A > B can only be logically concluded for humans. You've made the claim, you support it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > B.
Your use of "If" statements excuses nothing, and your simplification above is inaccurate (and tautological). Here is the simplified version of what you actually argued.
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > C.
You entered a strawman interpretation (C) of Jesus' words by applying what is moral for humans as what is moral for God.
Any argument contains premises and conclusions. They can be conditional, but they still have to follow logic.
But this isn't the case. And no, I didn't enter a strawman.
YOU are the one changing the question.
The question was: if A > B, when can God A?
If giving all you can give is greater than giving a fraction. When/Can God give all he can give?
It is a strawman because A > B can only logically be concluded for humans, not God. You mischaracterize A > B in this small but important part. For your assertion, you must show that A > B even applies to God.
Demonstrate that A > B can only be logically concluded for humans. You've made the claim, you support it.
Here it is, since you missed it before.
All Christians take from Jesus' teachings is that Jesus taught what is moral for humans to God. The inference you speak of is based off assumptions of probability. Laid out, your argument is like this:
P1: Jesus' parable shows what is moral for humans to God.
P2: What is moral for humans is usually what is moral for God.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus' parable definitely shows what is moral for God.
You are making a logical leap from P2 to the conclusion.
And technically, my apologies, I did misword the following: A > B can only logically be concluded for humans, not God.
It should read: A > B cannot be logically concluded for God based on the premises you have put forth.
You did not show that A > B can only be logically concluded for humans.
All your little quip does is show that it's POSSIBLE what Jesus said doesn't apply to God (Jesus is Lord/God part of the triune, or something to begin with). It doesn't show that what Jesus said doesn't apply to God.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You did not show that A > B can only be logically concluded for humans.
All your little quip does is show that it's POSSIBLE what Jesus said doesn't apply to God (Jesus is Lord/God part of the triune, or something to begin with). It doesn't show that what Jesus said doesn't apply to God.
Correct. That possibility precludes the entire premise of your question, which assumes (between P2 above and the conclusion) that it definitely does apply to God. Logically, you cannot do that.
Edited: You can ask "If this applies to God, then how is it applied to God?"
The answer to which is: It is all the same to God because God has infinite power and resources (omnipotence), making relative comparison of giving a fraction of those resources meaningless. In essence, this metric of human morality does not apply as a metric of God's morality.
But that's not what you asked. You said "Given this teaching [that applies to humans], how is it applied to God?" (below).
If (giving all you have) > (giving a small portion of what you have)
When can God's actions be ">" ?
When has God (given all he had)? When has God (given a small portion)?
Good and evil, opposite directions of actions. Actions have intent and purpose, a vector. An action that God does for his purpose, moves the state of the universe in the +good direction. An action that God does against his purpose, moves the universe in the -good direction, aka evil. This can be simplified to if God has a purpose and we call this good, if he is also all powerful he also is able to undo his own work. This is to do evil... -good.. Ergo evil exists with only God in existence even if he never chooses it. If he has no purpose, he is not God and there is no good and no evil.
This particular use of semantics was useful to make a point and not intended as a constant moving target. Just responding to why your proof is wrong by trying to clarify what I believe good and evil to be in the simplest way I could.
I respectfully disagree that being "omnibenevolent" means you lack even the capacity for evil.
EDIT: I'll go further and say that with your definition your proof may well be right and I'm not sure such a being could create agents at all if he is not one himself. And since he couldn't do evil he wouldn't be one... But I don't believe in your definition, and believe that mine is not thwarted by your proof.
Your argument is that it would be wrong for God to prevent evil because agency etc. In other words, he is not morally allowed to do it; he may not do it.
Do cookies exist in my house with only myself in my house even if I never choose to make them?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There's a reason I said this doesn't make any difference, and that's because it doesn't make any difference. Okay, so every action can be assigned a "goodness vector" (never let's mind how incoherent that is) -- again, I repeat the same argument: in a state of affairs inhabited only by God, no action God does is ever assigned an evil "vector" -- in other words, despite the potential for evil that may be given by these "vectors," no actual evil act ever occurs. "Potential X" or "the capacity for X" is not the same as "X."
However respectful your disagreement may be, it lacks substance. Bare assertions don't get us anywhere. It's not logically possible for an omnibenevolent being to do evil, because if he did, he would cease to be omnibenevolent -- his refrainment from said evil would make him more benevolent.
Actually, I've left the definition of evil as somewhat of a free variable so as to cover all cases. Semantic evasion is pointless here because of the functional nature of the argument. All you and I have to agree on is that evil is something that God refrains from doing. (whether voluntarily or out of necessity) Once we agree that God refrains from evil, then the rest of the argument follows analytically.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
But, are you REALLY arguing that the potential for evil to exist is equivalent to evil existing?
I know that this is your attempt to make coherent someone else's argument, which wasn't a sound one to start with.
That said, "Ignoring the goodness of the deed" when the question is the goodness of a deed should be a warning sign that we're not moving in the right direction.
No, you misunderstand. The point is the woman voluntarily gave up that which was her livelihood. She gave all that she had to live on. She gave up her life, and kept nothing back for herself. Because of this, her contribution is greater than those who gave large sums but kept a great deal back for themselves.
The point of the story is not, "Deeds are only good if they're costly to you."
The point is what is what it means to be a follower of the Jesus movement. The woman does not hold anything back, voluntarily giving up her own life in piety to God. Contrast this to the rich man in Mark 10:17-24, who follows moral law to the letter and is clearly an observant Jew, but when it comes down to following Jesus and giving up his possessions, or keeping him and turning away from Jesus, he makes his choice.
Jesus elevates the woman who is willing to give up everything over the one who is observant to religious rituals and decrees but is unwilling to give up his or her attachment to goods or life.
Oh no, I get all that, and yes I was trying to make something incoherent, coherent.
I still hold to everything else I said though.
If (giving all you have) > (giving a small portion of what you have)
When can God's actions be ">" ?
When has God (given all he had)? When has God (given a small portion)?
These questions certainly apply when considering how they are to elevate God's actions, are they not?
Especially when considering the magnitude of scale associated with a being performing any DEED, who has what amounts to an immeasurable set of ABILITY.
God is all powerful, Universe creating powerful. What is healing the sick to God? What is calming a storm to God? Five dollars to a vagabond, or a thousand dollars to a zillionaire?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
How much is "a small portion" in the context of infinity? What counts as a lot in the context of infinity? It's a meaningless judgement.
If the source is immeasurable then judging the "cost" in terms of how much is lost from the source is an invalid axis on which to judge because it has no meaning. You can't apply a judgement system based on a finite resource to something that is infinite.
There is no way to judge the relative value of different points on a scale that goes to infinity. In this sense nothing an omnipotent being does costs it any more or less than anything else it does or doesn't do.
God, in Christian beliefs, is an existence wholly different from humans (as pointed out, omnipotence, omniscience, etc).
Therefore, it is not necessarily true that morality for humans is the same as morality for God (and as you demonstrated, it actually cannot be).
Here is a good illustration of the difference that we apply in human society. We sometimes apply different standard to adults than we do to children based on a fundamental difference in their capacity. Generally they hold to the same guidelines, but there are exceptions. Take 21st century, mainstream morality on sex: just because morals dictate that pre-pubescent children having sex is bad, it does not follow that under the same system, adults having sex is bad or hypocritical. Adults and children do not always have equal comparisons, even along the same metric.
In the same way, the Christian God and humans do not always have equal comparisons along the same metric.
I'll stop you real fast. I did not use the term infinite, and I suggest we do NOT use the idea of infinite. It will help not the debate.
Like with infinite combos, I use MTG rules. i.e. an Arbitrarily Large Number.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Yes, God and humans are different, apples and oranges...
However, according to Christian Beliefs, Jesus was teaching us what was moral to God.
So we can infer, that if Jesus is Lord, and he is teaching us what God wants, then we can see what God's morals look like.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
All Christians take from Jesus' teachings is that Jesus taught what is moral for humans to God. The inference you speak of is based off assumptions of probability. Laid out, it is like this:
P1: Jesus' parable shows what is moral for humans to God.
P2: What is moral for humans is usually what is moral for God.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus' parable definitely shows what is moral for God.
You are making a logical leap from P2 to the conclusion.
Considering that we are talking about the Christian God, who possesses infinite goodness (omnibenevolence) and infinite power (omnipotence), you cannot assign an arbitrarily large number to replace infinity.
To do so is to put up a straw man since a googol does not equal infinity.
I make no conclusions, logical or otherwise.
Read my posts. I use "IF" quite a bit.
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > B.
If you want to argue A > B is true, but only for humans and doesn't apply to the Lord, that's on you.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It is very, very difficult to discredit all of Christianity by finding a logic hole in anything in the Bible. There are problems of translation from the original text, and there are whole denominations (notably, the Roman Catholic Church) that actively say parts of the Bible are outdated and not representative of the Word of God.
There are much easier, rational reasons for disbelief in Christian beliefs. Probably the easiest would be, if you are an empiricist, lack of empirical evidence. On top of that, there are numerous examples of institutional hypocrisy in churches. Once you enter theology (and arguing within the basic tenets of a religion), you will encounter much stiffer resistance. It is actually quite hard to refute Christian beliefs within that framework since they have been refined by very smart individuals over a couple thousand years.
Isn't that just changing the definition to suit the argument though? Because if we're talking about an omnipotent being, one that is capable of creating an entire universe from nothing, then we are talking about infinity or at least something that cannot be measured. Not a "very, very large but ultimately finite" amount of something.
Your use of "If" statements excuses nothing, and your simplification above is inaccurate (and tautological). Here is the simplified version of what you actually argued.
IF Jesus (who is supposed to be the Lord) says that A > B, then according to the Lord, A > C.
You entered a strawman interpretation (C) of Jesus' words by applying what is moral for humans as what is moral for God.
Any argument contains premises and conclusions. They can be conditional, but they still have to follow logic.
Just like going "infinite" in a game of magic (while possible) will in effect end the game, going "infinite" here, will in effect end the discussion.
Can we discuss anything, moral or otherwise, if all measurements of value must be compared to infinity?
Remember guys, I'm an anti-theist agnostic, not a believer. I don't have a dog in this fight.
However, we are talking about the Christian God, YHWH, the God of Abraham, of Israel, El. This is not necessarily a Tri-Omni God. First, the term OMNIbenevolent is never used in the Bible. (Even if some modern "translations" have added it.
http://www.openbible.info/topics/omnibenevolence
http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm
http://cerebralfaith.blogspot.com/2013/07/biblical-proof-for-gods-omnibenevolence.html
Furthermore, YHWH, the God of the Christian Bible has personality traits such as wrath, jealousy, anger, narcissism, created things and gave commands that many would argue are the antithesis of "good".
So try not to get hung up too hard on omnibenevolence. It won't end well.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But this isn't the case. And no, I didn't enter a strawman.
YOU are the one changing the question.
The question was: if A > B, when can God A?
If giving all you can give is greater than giving a fraction. When/Can God give all he can give?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
We do "go infinite" where Christian beliefs about God are concerned. Anything else is not Christian belief.
Even if I grant you that omnibenevolence is not a part of this conversation, omnipotence is fundamental to Christian beliefs about God. Considering you were asking us to compare things on a scale relative to one's own resources, omnipotence is the important part, not omnibenevolence.
It is a strawman because A > B can only logically be concluded for humans, not God. You mischaracterize A > B in this small but important part. For your assertion, you must show that A > B even applies to God.
That's not what a real Scotsman would say.
True.
But omnipotence is still logical (let's not get into creating burritos so hot he can't eat it)
Here we DO NOT disagree. In fact it is central to the OP's question.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Demonstrate that A > B can only be logically concluded for humans. You've made the claim, you support it.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Here it is, since you missed it before.
And technically, my apologies, I did misword the following: A > B can only logically be concluded for humans, not God.
It should read: A > B cannot be logically concluded for God based on the premises you have put forth.
All your little quip does is show that it's POSSIBLE what Jesus said doesn't apply to God (Jesus is Lord/God part of the triune, or something to begin with). It doesn't show that what Jesus said doesn't apply to God.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Correct. That possibility precludes the entire premise of your question, which assumes (between P2 above and the conclusion) that it definitely does apply to God. Logically, you cannot do that.
Edited: You can ask "If this applies to God, then how is it applied to God?"
The answer to which is: It is all the same to God because God has infinite power and resources (omnipotence), making relative comparison of giving a fraction of those resources meaningless. In essence, this metric of human morality does not apply as a metric of God's morality.
But that's not what you asked. You said "Given this teaching [that applies to humans], how is it applied to God?" (below).