Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[rojse]

I read the initial few posts to get the premise of the debate, and some of sojourner's more recent posts to find out where the debate is now.

If sojourner really refuted my point as he claims he did, he can post a link to the refutation. Since he can't post a link to the refutation, we can only assume that he didn't refute my point.

If you are going to join in the middle of a debate, it would be polite of you to read about the debate until now. Reading a few pages won't really do it, the start of this thread actually addressed the OP, which is only peripherally concerned with the current debate now.

I wouldn't expect you to remember the whole debate, but at least put in some effort here.

 

[rojse]

Would you be polite to Hitler?

Isn't there a rule of internet debate that says the first to mention Hitler loses?

 

[Storm]

Isn't there a rule of internet debate that says the first to mention Hitler loses?

Not exactly: Godwin's Law. I'd say that post qualifies, though.

 

[dogsgod]

Isn't there a rule of internet debate that says the first to mention Hitler loses?

Religious forums are exempt from that rule due to the strong religious ties between Hitler and Christianity.


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Historically, the most terrible things--war, genocide and slavery--have resulted from obedience, not disobedience.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]--Howard[/FONT] Zinn

 

[Storm]

You mean the ties that were throughly debunked in the other thread?

 

[dogsgod]

You mean the ties that were throughly debunked in the other thread?

That would be the debunking based on the biblical beliefs that non-believers are the cause of all evil.

 

[Storm]

Bull. But I suppose you need some excuse to cling to your delusion.

 

[dogsgod]

Bull. But I suppose you need some excuse to cling to your delusion.

The delusion that not all the Nazi leaders were atheists. I can live with that delusion.

 

[Storm]

The delusion that not all the Nazi leaders were atheists. I can live with that delusion.

More misrepresentation..... :no:

 

[dogsgod]

More misrepresentation..... :no:

"More misrepresentation" you say. Let's see:

"The top leadership positions of the Nazi party were all atheists"


The above is a quote that was stated as a fact by your friend that "thoroughly debunked" the Christian ties.

 

[Storm]

Where, exactly? Link.

 

[Storm]

Well, that's as insupportable as your claim they were all (or even just Hitler) Christians, and he shouldn't have said it. Doesn't help your claim, though.

 

[Willamena]

Are you guys serious?

 

[Storm]

You did, however, argue at length that Hitler's Christianity was indisputable, which is clearly not the case.

 

[Storm]

It's already been pointed out numerous times that he had motivation to lie.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Well this thread has gone to hellter.

Is there a delete button somewhere?

 

[cottage]

Again, God limited God's Self when God created humanity with free will.

To say 'God limited God's Self when God created humanity' is incoherent and logically impossible.
An omnipotent God is indivisible and immutable: he is what he is, a complete single entity, unchanging and not contingent upon anything.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
The facts are that love isn’t inclusive, not in any sense whatsoever, not in experience and not by definition.

Sojourner: You've never experienced love. you may have observed it, but you've never experienced it. Otherwise you could not make such an argument.
Were you never taught how to debate at school? Has nobody ever explained that the advocate isn’t the argument? And have you never heard of using examples to make a point, or speaking in the third person?


Quote:
To pose the existence of a God with all encompassing love is just a subjective belief that is held in spite of the evidence.

Sojourner: By George, I think he's got it! (Except for the "just" part.) Subjective belief isn't "just" anything -- it's of supreme importance here.
As usual you’ve chopped out the rest of the passage to leave one sentence high and dry…you can’t bring subjective beliefs into the experiential world and expect them to be objectively received. And even subjective beliefs must be logically possible.


Quote:
The very idea of a God who is dependent for his power on a relationship with the beings he created takes us to a new level of madness, as it would mean that before our creation God wasn’t omnipotent. See what I mean by weakening God?

Sojourner: No, it means that, once we were created, then God's love was expressed. And then God diminished God's power by giving some of it away. We don't know what was going on before creation -- nor do we speculate.
We can only know God from our perspective, and we can only talk about God from our perspective. From this side of creation, God was omnipotent in creation. Our endowment has no bearing on what may have come "before."
Your words were: ‘If there is no love there is no true power’.
1. One can’t love unless there is someone to love. So if God’s love was expressed at the moment of creation it means that prior to our creation God wasn’t all-powerful! Contradiction!
2. It also implies that God was compelled to create beings in order to love them and be loved by them. Contradiction!
3. It cannot be argued that God brought us into being to love us, because a) There can be no benefit for God, since he is all-sufficient and doesn’t need our love, and (b) we didn’t exist; and what doesn’t exist cannot in any sense be a beneficiary.
Other points. It’s logically impossible for omnipotence to be diminished, just as it logically impossible for God to be other than omnipotent.

Quote:
In the attempt to accommodate illogical beliefs, each of those special pleas just chips away a bit more of God’s necessary identity.

Sojourner: God's "necessary identity" is Creator. And what was created was the capacity for love to be expressed.
Not correct. We exist, the universe exists, and so we cannot say ‘God is not the creator’, but God is under no necessity to create universes or anything else. Test it! Say to yourself: God had to create humans and the universe. In fact try saying God had to do anything.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
So says the person who attempts a logical argument and then when it fails falls back on speculation and superstition.

So says the person who thinks that intuition and subjective experience are, in some real way, inferior to objective logic.
Well of course they are inferior when they’re self-contradictory! Your argument that an omni-benevolent God can permit evil is an example of a contradiction you wouldn’t abide in your ordinary life, and yet you expect it to be acceptable on a debating forum on account of a special plea to a mystical belief.

My "fall back" position is warranted, because you drew me into a trap of trying to make a logical argument for something that can only truly be argued theologically.
With respect, if it is a trap it is one of your own making, not mine. Answer me this: if it can only be argued theologically, why do you try to accommodate it logically. Seems to me you want it both ways. As a matter fact it is absolutely not true that religion can only be argued theologically. Many millions of words have been written on 'natural religion', either in support of revealed religion or to compliment it; some of the arguments are highly compelling and to this day have not been defeated.
Quote:
why don't you do me the common courtesy of answering my responses?

Why don't you do me the common courtesy of respecting theology?
I’ve already explained to you, I respect your right to believe but I don’t agree at all with your arguments. I don’t disrespect theology, but I cannot respect incoherent and self-contradictory arguments, such as the ones you've made here.


Quote:
Bad manners aren't a substitute for polite and reasoned argument.



Neither is asking for "proof" a substitute for theological understanding.
I’ve never claimed that it is, and I don’t know where you got the idea from that I might think that. And I’m not asking for ‘proof’ because I don’t accept that your ‘theological understanding’, as you’ve expressed it, corresponds with any truth.

Quote:
You've made accusations, so now be a man and back them up with examples.

Which accusations are you referring to? Please list them one at a time.
The accusations you made were that my “‘premise’ is false’”, and that my ‘arguments are false’. A demonstration of the falsity in both instances is now required from you.

__________________

 

[sojourner]

Really?
My experience has been the exact opposite.
That most of them judge and do so in a most hypocritical manner at that.

Though I will concede that most of them are far to busy making justifications for their deity than they are judging their deity by its own standards.

You've been talking to some weird Christians, then. Most Christians don't stand in judgment of God, because we know that we're not in a position to do that.