Don't try and say your omnimax god has a reason to allow suffering

[Willamena]

Then you must do away with one of the three assumtions (which it sounds like you are ready to do). So, which one goes?

• God can do anything.
• God wants what's best for us.
• Awful things happen to us.

Those are the premises, not the assumptions, but I'd do away with each of them. The ideas that "God" "does" things and "wants" things contain the assumption that "God" is a thing that is not everything (something that flies in the face of omnipresence); and the idea that the judgement "awful" in someway belongs to the thing itself.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Those are the premises, not the assumptions, but I'd do away with each of them. The ideas that "God" "does" things and "wants" things contain the assumption that "God" is a thing that is not everything (something that flies in the face of omnipresence); and the idea that the judgement "awful" in someway belongs to the thing itself.

You do realize that he's talking about the Abrahamic god, a god who clearly "does" things and "wants" things according to the religious scriptures which define that god?

 

[Willamena]

You do realize that he's talking about the Abrahamic god, a god who clearly "does" things and "wants" things according to the religious scriptures which define that god?

Actually I assumed he was talking about the storybook character "god" often mislabelled "Abrahamic", but yes. What I'm saying is that the assumptions inherent to that image result in the contradictary logic he's employing (and, incidentally, that that image is most popular amongst atheists arguing this nonsense).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Actually I assumed he was talking about the storybook character "god" often mislabelled "Abrahamic", but yes. What I'm saying is that the assumptions inherent to that image result in the contradictary logic he's employing (and, incidentally, that that image is most popular amongst atheists arguing this nonsense).

Interesting. I've yet to see a Christian who does not claim "God can do anything" and that "God wants what's best for us." Atheists didn't invent these assumptions - they simply point out the logical inconsistency of them.

 

[Willamena]

Interesting. I've yet to see a Christian who does not claim "God can do anything" and that "God wants what's best for us." Atheists didn't invent these assumptions - they simply point out the logical inconsistency of them.

That's beside the point.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's beside the point.

What exactly is "the point" in your view? Please be specific.

 

[Willamena]

What exactly is "the point" in your view? Please be specific.

*points at post #203 and #201* :banghead3

 

[Kilgore Trout]

*points at post #203 and #201* :banghead3

*points at posts #202 and #204*

If you think I haven't somehow addressed the point(s), then please describe how.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Those are the premises, not the assumptions, but I'd do away with each of them. The ideas that "God" "does" things and "wants" things contain the assumption that "God" is a thing that is not everything (something that flies in the face of omnipresence); and the idea that the judgement "awful" in someway belongs to the thing itself.

Pantheist?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Actually I assumed he was talking about the storybook character "god" often mislabelled "Abrahamic", but yes. What I'm saying is that the assumptions inherent to that image result in the contradictary logic he's employing (and, incidentally, that that image is most popular amongst atheists arguing this nonsense).

So you agree with me that such a view of God is incorrect. I'm not sure what we're arguing about. If you do not make those statements and their underlying assumptions about your God, then this thread is not talking about you. I feel, as you do, that the Abrahamic God is storybook in nature. Theodicy illustrates that fact clearly.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Is this not exactly what is preached that heaven is?

But it is exactly what the OP insists life should be like (according to his standards) if a "omnimax" god were to exist at all.
And if the OP is looking for heaven on earth then my question is why should such a god bother with creating life in the first place?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And if the OP is looking for heaven on earth then my question is why should such a god bother with creating life in the first place?

Maybe this question doesn't point so much to the validity of the OP's premises, but more calls into question the idea that an omnimax god would create life at all.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

When Christian apologists make comparisons like the above, do they forget, according to their own mythology, that their god is all-powerful? All-powerful means: god makes the rules. It means: there doesn't need to be suffering unless he wants it that way. To make someone suffer needlessly isn't love. So take your pick; is he all-loving or all-powerful, because he can't be both. Unless you think "love" is to inflict unnecessary suffering.

Christians insist that it must be necessary for god to make us suffer, that it must be for our own good. Well then he's not all-powerful is he? Consider this:
You say, "Perhaps x can only be achieved through suffering."
Well guess what? Your all-powerful god could make x achievable with no suffering necessary, no matter what x is. Remember: all-powerful. He makes the rules.

So don't try and say god has a good reason to allow suffering, that it's beyond our understanding, and then turn around and say he's all-loving and all-powerful. It's a contradiction.

All belief systems have there "Achilles' heel," the problem of Good and Evil seem to be the weakness of the Christians. How can a Good all-powerful being allow us to suffer.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Maybe this question doesn't point so much to the validity of the OP's premises, but more calls into question the idea that an omnimax god would create life at all.

That's what I'm saying...

Assuming this god does exist then it's rules, regulations, requirements, expectations, potential punishments(s) are futile because such a god, you would think, would be, beyond that....considering it as the creator should have full knowledge of its creation (before creation, creation, present and future).

Just my thoughts....

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

9-10ths_Penguin][/B]
Maybe this question doesn't point so much to the validity of the OP's premises, but more calls into question the idea that an omnimax god would create life at all.

That's what I'm saying...

Assuming this god does exist then it's rules, regulations, requirements, expectations, potential punishments(s) are futile because such a god, you would think, would be, beyond that....considering it as the creator should have full knowledge of its creation (before creation, creation, present and future).

Just my thoughts....

Exactly, what would prompt a god of such power to want or need to do such a thing as create life, what reasons could god come up with to do it?

The only thing I can ever come up with is that we're some kind of lab experiment that god has running and he's just sitting back and watching to see what we will do.

Or maybe we're like Sea Monkey's and we all have to hope that he doesn't get board with us and stop feeding us.

 

[Katzpur]

Pops popcorn, pulls up chair....

Discretely checks to make sure rubber raft is in tip top shape

May I join you?

 

[Katzpur]

When Christian apologists make comparisons like the above, do they forget, according to their own mythology, that their god is all-powerful? All-powerful means: god makes the rules. It means: there doesn't need to be suffering unless he wants it that way. To make someone suffer needlessly isn't love. So take your pick; is he all-loving or all-powerful, because he can't be both. Unless you think "love" is to inflict unnecessary suffering.

Christians insist that it must be necessary for god to make us suffer, that it must be for our own good. Well then he's not all-powerful is he? Consider this:
You say, "Perhaps x can only be achieved through suffering."
Well guess what? Your all-powerful god could make x achievable with no suffering necessary, no matter what x is. Remember: all-powerful. He makes the rules.

So don't try and say god has a good reason to allow suffering, that it's beyond our understanding, and then turn around and say he's all-loving and all-powerful. It's a contradiction.

When people think they're as smart as God, it's so easy for them to have all the answers. I can't believe this topic is coming up AGAIN!

 

[OmarKhayyam]

When people think they're as smart as God, it's so easy for them to have all the answers. I can't believe this topic is coming up AGAIN!

The Inconsistent Triad has been around since Epicurus 1st stated it. It is hardly surprising that we still discuss it.

 

[McBell]

But it is exactly what the OP insists life should be like (according to his standards) if a "omnimax" god were to exist at all.

Not really.
The OP is merely making the claim that to be "all" loving one has to not allow suffering.
A premise I myself do not believe holds up to scrutiny.

Unfortunately, I have not seen anyone actually try to refute this particular part very well.

And if the OP is looking for heaven on earth then my question is why should such a god bother with creating life in the first place?

What makes anyone think that this ISN"T heaven on earth?

 

[McBell]

May I join you?

*Unfolds another chair*