Craig and Hitchens. A moral God?

[sojourner]

Everything that came into existence after the big bang.

God is before the Big Bang.

It is the ability to do as one wishes.

No. It isn't. It's the state of all power.

What do you mean?

the world is as it is. I'm saying that God didn't "plan" it that way, or "intend it" in any certain way.

Then, what is the justification for not changing this world instantly into the best possible of all worlds?

Because arbitrarily changing the nature of the world doesn't jive with science. The world works according to given laws God is as much scientific law as God is creator of scientific law. And I'm not convinced creation was "intended" to be "the way it is." It just happened. We don't intend our children to be born without a spine or with an extra chromosome, but it happens. We create our children, but we don't "intend" that they be a certain way.

If God couldn't create a different world, it does.

Not unless you're twisting "omnipotence" to mean something it was never meant to mean.

They are. But that's strictly because survival on this world is increased by the ability to feel some pain. What i have argued is that being unable to feel pain does not cause suffering BY ITSELF. If the individual was able to quickly regenerate from any kind of harm ( omnipotence could make this happen ), then being unable of feeling pain wouldn't cause any problem.

Again with "if." IF wishes were horses, beggars would ride...

Then, what is the excuse for God creating us like this?

There is no excuse, because God didn't "create us like this." Creation happened -- i believe -- unintentionally.

That in itself is a image of god. What makes your image better than anyone else's?

Of course! That's all we've got are incomplete images. Nothing makes mine "better" than anyone else's. It merely creates a more complete image. It does have more integrity with regard to science.

 

[sojourner]

Then explain to me without your usual obfuscation what it is you believe you’ve shown?

That God need not, in any way, be constrained to the image you've decided to put forth. God can exist in all power and benevolence, and the world exist as it exists.

What circumstances imposed on what and by whom or by what?

The circumstances imposed by you upon God that constrain God to some "flying spaghetti monster-esque" being who possesses the attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence without using them to your benefit.

And why are the imposed circumstances not necessarily the imposed circumstances?

Because no one has a complete image of God through which to impose any specific set of all-encompassing circumstances.

Just read this sentence of yours: “God is, at all times and in all places, love and benevolence -- which do exist in and through suffering, not merely wherever and whenever suffering does not exist.”

“God” and “suffering” is a self-evident contradiction, unless God is less than omnibenevolent.

Nope. God isn't "all-benevolent." God is all benevolence. Where benevolence exists in any circumstance -- even suffering -- God is there. God is benevolence in and through suffering.

Creation “happened” and suffering exists because that is the way God meant it to happen.

There you go imposing a certain set of circumstances on God. How is "because that is the way God meant it to happen" consistent with what we know about the universe?

The alternative is that God didn’t mean it to happen, in which case God is not the omnipotent creator.

I never claimed that God is the "omnipotent creator." God is omnipotence -- that is, God is all power. God is Creator in that God is creative principle. But I never claimed that God is some cosmic watchmaker.

There is a contradiction whichever way you turn.

Nope.

You are being deliberately disingenuous! I’ve used your argument that God is all powerful to show that if suffering exists, and God is the all powerful cause of all things, then God must be the cause of suffering.

My argument isn't that God is all-powerful.

And so if he is the creator of all things then he is the creator of evil and suffering.

God isn't "the creator of all things." God is the creation of all that is created. There's a difference.

“Omnipotence (noun) is “the state or quality of being omnipotent.”

No. It's not. God doesn't have power. God is power.

 

[Koldo]

God is before the Big Bang.

Good. Then what is god other than what came after the big bang?

No. It isn't. It's the state of all power.

According to your view, no doubt.
You like to define words according to your convenience.

the world is as it is. I'm saying that God didn't "plan" it that way, or "intend it" in any certain way.

Because arbitrarily changing the nature of the world doesn't jive with science. The world works according to given laws God is as much scientific law as God is creator of scientific law. And I'm not convinced creation was "intended" to be "the way it is." It just happened. We don't intend our children to be born without a spine or with an extra chromosome, but it happens. We create our children, but we don't "intend" that they be a certain way.

But the point is: It is not arbitrary at all to change the nature of the world according to your will if you have unlimited power. What is arbitrary is to act against your will.

Not unless you're twisting "omnipotence" to mean something it was never meant to mean.

Twisting? So, a whole lot of people across centuries has been twisting the meaning of 'omnipotence', and you just happen to have the 'right' meaning of 'omnipotence'. Yeah, right...

Again with "if." IF wishes were horses, beggars would ride...

What do you have against 'if' ?
Since God has unlimited power then the difference between what exists and what does not ( the ifs ) is a matter of preference. Actualizing these 'ifs' is merely trivial.

There is no excuse, because God didn't "create us like this." Creation happened -- i believe -- unintentionally.

The problem of evil persists regardless of this god being the creator.
What excuse is there for god not changing what goes against his omnibenevolence as he saw fit?

Of course! That's all we've got are incomplete images. Nothing makes mine "better" than anyone else's. It merely creates a more complete image. It does have more integrity with regard to science.

A more complete image? How is it a more complete image?
More integrity with regard to science? Only compared to young earth creationists.

 

[cottage]

That God need not, in any way, be constrained to the image you've decided to put forth. God can exist in all power and benevolence, and the world exist as it exists.

God can only do what is logically possible. There can be a logically possible God that is all powerful, but since evil and suffering exists there is self-evidently no omnibenevolence to be attributed of that (supposedly) all powerful God, since it implies a contradiction.

The circumstances imposed by you upon God that constrain God to some "flying spaghetti monster-esque" being who possesses the attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence without using them to your benefit.

I’ve already explained this to you twice that there are no circumstances imposed by me or anyone else; the logical problem exists regardless of any polemical position. If you agree that suffering exists and you maintain that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent then I’m afraid your argument is one of self-contradiction and absurdity.

Because no one has a complete image of God through which to impose any specific set of all-encompassing circumstances.

In that case it cannot be argued that God is an omnipotent, omniscient being, a conclusion that is also confirmed for us in general experience as a matter of fact.

Nope. God isn't "all-benevolent." God is all benevolence. Where benevolence exists in any circumstance -- even suffering -- God is there. God is benevolence in and through suffering.

Thank you. Then there is no omnibenevolent God, which is what I stated in my OP!

There you go imposing a certain set of circumstances on God. How is "because that is the way God meant it to happen" consistent with what we know about the universe?

That is an obtuse statement. Only God, if he exists, imposes a “certain set of circumstances”, which is what we have in the world. And what we know of the world is that suffering exists as a fact, which you’ve agreed, and if God is the creator of all things as you’ve also agreed, then suffering exists because god wills it and makes it possible.

I never claimed that God is the "omnipotent creator." God is omnipotence -- that is, God is all power. God is Creator in that God is creative principle. But I never claimed that God is some cosmic watchmaker.

Oh yes you have! You’ve said: “God is omnipotent” (235) “God created the world” (245) “God is creator” (241) “God made the universe (259)

Nope.
My argument isn't that God is all-powerful.

So if God isn’t omnipotent then that explains why there is no omnibenevolence. (Although that contradicts what you’ve said previously: “God is omnipotent” (post 339), and in that same post you disagreed with me when I said “…and in that case he's not omnipotent and hence we have suffering that God cannot erase.”)

God isn't "the creator of all things." God is the creation of all that is created. There's a difference.

Oh be serious! I’m sorry but it but it seems to me that you to have no clear idea of what it is you want to say but stumble from one absurdity to another, continually contradicting yourself. If God is the creation of all things created then he is a created thing. And if he is a created thing then by definition he is not God.

No. It's not. God doesn't have power. God is power.

God is omnipotent (not just “is power”), which you yourself stated in 235 and 339.