OK. Incidentally, I'm not sure why (some) theists insist on these "omni" attributes. The whole "problem of evil" goes away if you just weaken one or more of these attributes. And there's no way to establish it anyway. Here's a something to think about. Can God know that he knows everything?
No, there is no way to establish that there is a problem of evil. That is only a personal opinion.
Of course God knows that He knows everything. If God knows everything He has to know that He knows everything.
Why not judge God (if that was your meaning)? I think it's something to do with respect, but apparently it's OK to judge God and say good things about him. If that's the case, why is it wrong to say bad things? It reinforces my idea that the OT God was based on real life rulers of the time. Say something bad about them and they get offended and would hang you up, by your thumbs.
I think we can have opinions about God but we should not judge God since that is backwards, since it is God who judges us, not we Him. We can say good things or bad things about God but I don't think it is going to hurt God, although maybe God will be disappointed for our sakes if we say bad things and happy for us if we say good things. But regardless of what we say or don't say, I believe that God knows everything that is in our minds -- there is no hiding from God!
I do not doubt that that the OT God was based on real life rulers of the time.
I don't think there is any proof if you exclude scripture, and even then you have to accept certain ideas from scripture, like creation. No, I don't think Jesus was literally God's son, even divine. Actually I like the Messenger theory better, but it still needs some proof.
I do not believe that Jesus literally God's son, but I believe that Jesus had a twofold nature, so He was both human and divine. All the Messengers of God had this twofold nature, but of course this can never be proven.
It's difficult to accept that someone who, in the face of suffering, stands by and does nothing when capable is truly loving or benevolent. "First do no harm" is a fine first principle in medicine, but doctors do also attempt cures.
But God is not a 'someone' who stands by, since God is not a man. To compare God to a human and expect God to do what a human would do is the fallacy of false equivalence, since God is not equivalent to a human.
My issue with God not being loving is not because He does not come down to earth and rescue people who are suffering, it is because he created this earth in the first place, and it is a storehouse of suffering.
This is not about whether God is capable or truly loving or benevolent. Why would God come and rescue people from what He intentionally created? Think about it.
I think it's easier to accept that god is loving based on personal experience (if that applies), rather than considering the whole of human experience. If things go well it's easier to believe than when they don't.
That's for darn tootin' and it is a very good point. I think most people who believe that God is loving had happy lives, although there are some exceptions. But even those exceptions came out on the other end of their suffering, so that's why they believe God is loving.
I don't know if you have been following my personal story as related to
@Brian2? The next chapter is, I developed a picture of God that allowed for benevolence and the existence of evil. Briefly, God didn't make the world, he developed as part of the world as time passed. So we can't blame him for how the material world is. Natural "evil" (earthquakes, lightning, disease) is morally neutral, and is just something we have to deal with. True evil comes from us, in all its myriad forms. Goodness also comes from us. God cannot change the world physically, but can influence our minds, with our cooperation. So, we can make the world, and particularly ourselves, better with God's guidance. God may be something external, or just a name for the better part of human nature. At the time I thought it was an external "something".
No, I have not been following that, but I agree with what you said: "So we can't blame him for how the material world is. Natural "evil" (earthquakes, lightning, disease) is morally neutral, and is just something we have to deal with. True evil comes from us, in all its myriad forms. Goodness also comes from us. God cannot change the world physically, but can influence our minds, with our cooperation. So, we can make the world, and particularly ourselves, better with God's guidance."
That is a very Baha'i-like observation. On another forum, yesterday I heard a Baha'i say that God can influence our minds, with our cooperation . Yes, I have been skipping out.
To those that disagree, this is just an idea that appealed to me and seemed to fit the evidence, so there's no point telling me I'm wrong. I'm not claiming to be "right" in any verifiable sense.
I do not think you are wrong, I think you are right!
Actually that was about "why" God is loving. If you help me that shows me you care, and I'll settle for that without knowing how your nature came about.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. This fits well with what Baha'u'llah wrote about deeds.
“The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds; he whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than his life.”
“Man is like unto a tree. If he be adorned with fruit, he hath been and will ever be worthy of praise and commendation. Otherwise a fruitless tree is but fit for fire.”
Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 156, 257
There's a 12-step program.
You are a funny man. Why would I want to 'recover' from the belief that God exists?
Admittedly though, it has its pros and cons.