Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 2)

[Trailblazer]

I asked you if it was kind that God created a world where cancers would develop, and you answered YES. It's part of the record.

So I want you to expand on that. You said yes, it was kind that the God created a world that developed cancers, and I want to know what is kind about that.

I do not have time to go back and look at exactly what I said so I will take your word for it.
God did not deliberately create a world with the intention for cancers to develop. That cancers developed has no bearing on whether God is kind or unkind. Cancers developed as the result of many factors and I am not a cancer researcher so I don't know what those are.

So since god decided that cancers were to be part of the world, and you can''t know the reasons for it, what makes you think God is benevolent?

God did not decide that cancers were to be part of the world, they simply developed over time.
Whether God is benevolent or not has nothing to do with the existence of cancer. I do not base my belief o about God's attributes on the existence of cancers or anything else I see in the world. The only way I can know the attributes of God is through a Messenger of God. Baha'ullah wrote that God is benevolent so that is what I believe. Anything else would just be my subjective personal opinion.

“Be fair to yourselves and to others, that the evidences of justice may be revealed, through your deeds, among Our faithful servants. Beware lest ye encroach upon the substance of your neighbor. Prove yourselves worthy of his trust and confidence in you, and withhold not from the poor the gifts which the grace of God hath bestowed upon you. He, verily, shall recompense the charitable, and doubly repay them for what they have bestowed. No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

 

[Trailblazer]

Then given the fact that cancers and other nasty things like flesh eating bacteria that God decided to allow to develop, AND you say we can't know why these were allowed, THEN you can't claim any confidence that God is benevolent.

As I said in the previous post, I do not base my opinion as to whether God is benevolent it not on what I see in this world. God did not decide to allow them to develop, they simply developed and God did not intervene to stop them. I can claim confidence that God is benevolent because that is what Baha'u'llah wrote.

I know you want to slap that label on God, but the facts we observe, and the lack of knowing what God is up to as far as reasons (your claim), doesn't justify that.

They don't justify that for you because you do not believe in Baha'u'llah, but rather you make your own assessments and come to your own conclusions.

Frankly I don't know why that's so important to you. Is it because Baha’u’llah says so?

I do not slap the label infallible on God. Messengers of God including Baha'u'llah say that God is infallible that is the only way to know anything about God. If God is not infallible God is not God and there would be no reason to even believe in God or do anything He commands us to do.

“God never needs any excuses because an Infallible God is incapable of making any mistakes.”

Ah, a new claim and twist. Well since we have no way to know if this is true or not we throw it out.

It is not a new claim, I have been saying it all along. The only way we have to know it is true is by what Messengers reveal in scriptures.

So the child dying from leukemia is accountable to God. Explain how that's is how it has to be, and how this isn't even more cruelty.

I never said that a child is accountable to God, because humans cannot be accountable to God until they reach the age of reason so that they can understand what God revealed.

Sorry, when you say God is the creator, and it knows all, and has the power to create a world without cancers, it ALL falls on God's doorstep. It's too late for you to deny this. You've described God as THE reason why cancers developed. And you admit we can't know the reason why God did this.

Just because God has the power to create a world without cancers that does not mean that God deliberately caused cancers to develop, but we have already covered this so there is no need to beat a dead horse.

You don't like it. I'm sorry, but you've already put the pieces together for us to conclude that God can't be claimed to be benevolent. Maybe it is, but you certainly can't claim that it is via logic.

Logic does not determine the attributes of God because God is unknowable and God transcends logic.

You can believe whatever you want to and I will believe what I want to believe. The difference is that what I believe comes from God and what you believe comes from your own subjective determinations. In other words, it is based upon what you consider benevolent.

So here again you suggest we mortals can't know what God does. That means we can't say God is benevolent or malevolent. Your personal belief and opinion is irrelevant. You are trying to convince us that God is benevolent by your texts and what we observe.

We mortals can't know what God does and that means we can't say God is malevolent, just because you imagine God is doing something you consider malevolent. My personal belief and opinion is irrelevant to you but it is not irrelevant to me. I am not trying to convince anyone that God is benevolent by my texts. I just cite tem in order to explain why I believe God is benevolent.

However what you claim, including how little we know about God, we can't take your texts at face value and agree with you.

I would never expect anyone to take my texts at face value or agree with me. Only Baha'is are going to believe those texts represent God's Word.

Baha’u’llah was a human and not a God so could be in error.

I would have no reason to put my faith n a man. Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God so He was both divine and human, since He had a two-fold nature. Whatever Baha’u’llah wrote and did represents the Will of God and as such Bahaullah was also infallible. That is explained in the following passage.

“The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.” Gleanings, p. 167

You're a believer, heavily invested emotionally, and biased. We aren't so we have the freedom to look at this more objectively. So is it possible you could be mistaken?

That is a gross generalization. Just because I am a believer that does not mean I am emotional. It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say all believers are emotional. I am biased towards my beliefs but everyone has a bias towards what they believe or disbelieve.

 

[Koldo]

Any of what? I do not have time to backtrack and read previous posts. What do you think is not beneficial?

Phocomelia, cleft lip and palate, hydrocephalus, and being raped.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Believe as you wish, but I do not believe any of those events ever occurred.

More modern, then; the tsunami in Japan back in 2011, Hurricane Katrina, the Joplin Tornado of 2011 (boy, that was a big year for Acts of God, huh?), Mt. St. Helens... Oh, but these are probably out of an omnipotent god's hands, right?

I never said that humans are responsible for what they are born with or diseases they acquire later in life.

Loki's balls, if you twist any more you're gonna throw your back out. No, but you did say that they are human problems for which humans are responsible. Which doesn't really cover a lot of suffering, when it's all taken into account. Again, do try to explain how humans are responsible for diseases contracted. And better yet:

Humans are only responsible for their moral choices.

Explain how it's a moral choice to catch a disease, or fall victim to a drought or famine. Absolutely heartless.

God cannot make mistakes because God is infallible, so there is no need for God to fix what He created.

So it is as he intended, yes? There's nothing to fix? Your god is then evil. Fallible through that vileness, and absolutely unworthy of worship or veneration. Bearing such responsibility I would curse his name, scorn his ill-begotten crafts, and spit at the feet of those who come in his name. Luckily for my hospitality, I know that your claims are so much rose-lensed adoration.

Just because God does not do what you want him to does not mean God is not benevolent.

Yes, however a god that can fix injustice and chooses not to is not benevolent.

So you won't miss it this time, you are expecting God to fix the world just because YOU don't like it. Grow up and accept reality.

Oh really now. How nice to have you to tell me what I want and what I expect. What should I have for dinner, blazer?

No. Firstly in that such is furthest from what I believe, regardless I wouldn't turn to your god for the smallest of things, much less reshaping my reality. Secondly in that these are your claims to support through your stance that your god is all-powerful and all-benevolent, and you thus far cannot prove that. You just pass the buck and call us all whining children as though vast and lingering suffering is comparable to [REDACTED] ice cream. It's disgusting, really.

 

[Koldo]

Sorry, I am not going down the road called "God can do anything because God is omnipotent."
Just because God can do anything that does not mean God will or should do anything humans want Him to do...
God is not a short order cook.

Omnipotence implies that God only does what God chooses to do, not what people want or expect Him to do. That is logic 101, but in order to make it perfectly clear...

Omnipotence implies ability but it also implies that God only uses that ability as He chooses to, NOT as you want Him to. The following verses explain what omnipotence implies, in a nutshell:

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest.He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, p, 284

“God witnesseth that there is no God but Him, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. All grace and bounty are His. To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish. He, verily, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.” Gleanings, p. 73

for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will.

· That means God has complete power and He does whatever He chooses to do, which implies that He is not going to do what you think He should do or what you want Him to do, unless He chooses to do it.

He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain.

· That means you have no right to question what God ordains. It is what it is and you cannot change it.

To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish.

· That means if God feels like giving you something you will get it but if not you won’t.

I agree that being omnipotent doesn't entail that God will do what others want from him, but this doesn't contradict my former post in any way whatsoever. Therefore I have no idea why you are mentioning this.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because we know that what has been done can be done.

Could God eradicated smallpox? Humans did, so any god worth its salt would be able to eradicate smallpox, too.

... which leads to a question: if God could have done it, why didn't he?

The 100 dollar question is why God should do what humans are perfectly capable of doing?
It does not MATTER if God could have done it, it was not necessary for God to do what humans can do.

Do you understand how backwards your logic is?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Omnipotence implies that God only does what God chooses to do, not what people want or expect Him to do. That is logic 101, but in order to make it perfectly clear...

Omnipotence implies ability but it also implies that God only uses that ability as He chooses to, NOT as you want Him to.

You know what's truly funny about this? Abrahamists love to sometimes point to the contest between Yahweh and one of the Ba'alim, through representation of their priests. The contests is given, and the altars to this Ba'al and Yahweh are soaked in water. Ba'al's remains unlit, no matter how hard the priests tried. Oh, but Yahweh's goes up with a fabulous bolt from the sky and hooray! Yahweh is clearly the real god.

Given the above notion, why should the Ba'al have cared about stroking the egos of men, much less proving anything to the cult of Yahweh?

 

[Koldo]

Omnibenevolent: (of a deity) possessing perfect or unlimited goodness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=omnibenevolent+means

Benevolent: well meaning and kindly.
https://www.google.com/search?q=benevolent+means

I understand the term. I was wasking why you are calling him benevolent but not omnibenevolent.
Do you mean that sometimes he is malevolant? Why do you feel the need to remove the omni- part?

"actualize any state of affairs he wants whenever he wants"

God can do whatever He chooses but God does an omnipotent God only does what he chooses to do..
God does not do what people want or expect Him to do. God is not a short order cook.
This is what flies right over the head of atheists that say that God "can do anything."

Once again, this does not contradict what I was saying.
So you do agree that God, being omnipotent, can actualize any state of affairs he wants, right?
Therefore, my point stands.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree that being omnipotent doesn't entail that God will do what others want from him, but this doesn't contradict my former post in any way whatsoever. Therefore I have no idea why you are mentioning this.

I am sorry, I cannot find your former post. What doesn't what I said -- God being omnipotent doesn't entail that God will do what others want from him -- not contradict?

 

[Koldo]

I am sorry, I cannot find your former post. What doesn't what I said -- God being omnipotent doesn't entail that God will do what others want from him -- not contradict?

That omnipotence can make it possible to gain any good without any evil, because omnipotence entails actualizing any state of affairs conceivable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God did not deliberately create a world with the intention for cancers to develop.

Why do you think that this ended up not as God intended, then? Was God incapable of translating his cancer-free design into reality?

That cancers developed has no bearing on whether God is kind or unkind. Cancers developed as the result of many factors and I am not a cancer researcher so I don't know what those are.

But out of all the factors you could imagine might play a role in cancer, which of them do you think are beyond God's control?

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand the term. I was wasking why you are calling him benevolent but not omnibenevolent.

Do you mean that sometimes he is malevolant? Why do you feel the need to remove the omni- part?
No, that is not want I mean. I removed the omni part because it is not in my scriptures.

This is black and white thinking that God is either benevolent or malevolent. God is never malevolent but sometimes God has wrath.

Once again, this does not contradict what I was saying.
So you do agree that God, being omnipotent, can actualize any state of affairs he wants, right?
Therefore, my point stands.

I understand your point but is is moot because it does not MATTER what God can do if God does not choose to do it? Why is that so difficult for atheists to understand?

IOWs why keep talking about what God can do? It is an utter waste of time, unless you are implying that God should do it because God can do it, but then we are right back with what I said before. You expect God to do what you want but God only does what He chooses to do.

 

[Koldo]

The 100 dollar question is why God should do what humans are perfectly capable of doing?
It does not MATTER if God could have done it, it was not necessary for God to do what humans can do.

Do you understand how backwards your logic is?

We are not omnipotent though...
Smallpox killed hundreds of millions of people...
Do you mean that just because we could eventually find a way to handle it that God should not have prevented all the suffering caused this disease? Why?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

IOWs why keep talking about what God can do? It is an utter waste of time, unless you are implying that God should do it because God can do it, but then we are right back with what I said before. You expect God to do what you want but God only does what He chooses to do.

I think you need to understand what it being said, and what exactly is being expected.

No one is expecting your god to give us a kushy life. No one expects your god to give us a Corvette and $50,000. In your example, we don't want the [REDACTED] chocolate ice cream. What we do expect is that if your god wants to be called and considered the Prime Example of what is good and just, he needs to set that example. Right the injustices and environmental harms that we cannot fix. Be a good god. Otherwise he's a charlatan, a pretender, and at most evil.

 

[Koldo]

No, that is not want I mean. I removed the omni part because it is not in my scriptures.

This is black and white thinking that God is either benevolent or malevolent. God is never malevolent but sometimes God has wrath.

What distinction would there be, in the way that God acts, if he was omnibenevolent?
I am trying to understand if you see any distinction.

I understand your point but is is moot because it does not MATTER what God can do if God does not choose to do it? Why is that so difficult for atheists to understand?

IOWs why keep talking about what God can do? It is an utter waste of time, unless you are implying that God should do it because God can do it, but then we are right back with what I said before. You expect God to do what you want but God only does what He chooses to do.

I was only mentioning that point because of something else you said in a former post.
If we agree on what omnipotence means, then nevermind. I would only say then that any omnipotent and benevolent god would help people in need in the best way he could, because that is what it means to be truly benevolent.

 

[Trailblazer]

That omnipotence can make it possible to gain any good without any evil, because omnipotence entails actualizing any state of affairs conceivable.

This is what I meant before when I said that you expect God to do what you want, but God only does what He chooses to do.
Again, it does not matter what omnipotence implies God could do because as God only does what God chooses to do.

 

[Koldo]

This is what I meant before when I said that you expect God to do what you want, but God only does what He chooses to do.
Again, it does not matter what omnipotence implies God could do because as God only does what God chooses to do.

The argument has multiple layers.
One of them is about whether God could have prevented evil. I took it that you meant that God could not. But since you are not saying that, we can go past this point.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you mean that just because we could eventually find a way to handle it that God should not have prevented all the suffering caused this disease? Why?

That is EXACTLY what I mean. God should not have prevented all the suffering caused by this disease.

You answer me and tell me why think God should do it?
And please do not say "because God is omnipotent" again because I will respond to no more of those posts, since we already covered this.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Let's frame the issue this way, since metaphors and parables seem to be the go-to vehicle of example.

Your father is a Master Gardener. There's nothing that he can't grow, in all types of soil, and he's lauded far and wide for being The Gardender. The best there is, and the utmost Expert and Authority on all things Garden. He decides to grow Poison Ivy in your yard. Maybe he likes the look, maybe he wanted to keep people off the grass; who knows, his mind is Unknowable. But he grows it, all over. One day your kid falls in the ivy. It's everywhere, and it really was unavoidable. They fall in, and are just covered in rashes. What do you do?

Your arguments here say that you would absolve your father of any wrong doing. He's the Gardener, he knew what he was doing, and he doesn't have to answer to stupid kids. You would tell your child to stop whining, that your father like that Ivy and he doesn't have to answer to the child's pleas to remove it just because they're a little itchy. They can just live with it and grow from it, and somehow it's their fault anyways.

Yet Reason would hold your father accountable. For someone with his knowledge, Poison Ivy should have been absolutely off the table for a residential yard. He is liable for putting it there, and being in a residence should have foreseen and prevented such an event from happening. He planted the ivy, and it's his responsibility to bear the blame.

 

[1213]

Yeah, the A&E myth just doesn't work. The humans wanted to know evil? Yet they lacked the very knowledge that makes a person make a responsible decision and choice, so they were created deficient. And God deliberately tempted them. It was a set up....

Sorry, I disagree with that. They had all necessary knowledge and they could have asked anything from God. But no, Eve wanted to become like God and Adam wanted to please the woman.

Let no man say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God," for God can't be tempted by evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.
James 1:13-14

Yet many do not have the freedom from a genetic disposition of fatal diseases, and that is because our Creation includes cancers and other defects of genes.

All diseases came possible when people rejected God, they were not a problem in the beginning.