• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God the Programmer

ZooGirl02

ZooGirl02

Well-Known Member
If God is a programmer then he must have not done a very good job at debugging. I mean, look at all the flaws that this earth and life on it has. Everything, even plants, will die some day, everything suffers, wars are going on at pretty much every moment of time, violence occurs on a constant basis, illness and disease is rampant, etc etc etc. I mean, if I had programmed such a world, I think I'd be formatting it and starting over. :p;)
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Thief said:
Benevolent as in benefactor?
God owes you something?
Click to expand...

Thief, it isn't benevolent to not care about someone who's suffering. It's malevolent.

Suppose someone's been stabbed in an alley and they're crawling for you pleading for help... all you have to do is get your cell phone out to call the ambulance... but you walk away instead for a cup of coffee.

Are you "good?" Are you "benevolent?"

Or are you evil and malevolent?

I don't see how this is difficult to grasp.
 
K

kingdombuilder

Member
Meow Mix said:
Thief, as I've explained to you succinctly before...

The argument is that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator-God existing while suffering is so prevalent in the world is contradictory and therefore one or more of those premises is wrong.

Either God is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not benevolent, not the creator, not existent, or somehow suffering doesn't exist. Not all of those things can be true because it contradicts...
Click to expand...

One of the premises is that God is omniscient (all-knowing). Are you or anyone else who takes the same position as you on this particular argument claiming to know more than a being who is premised to be all knowing? If there is a being who is all knowing then it seems pretty arrogant to argue that there is no good purpose in suffering. In other words, if omniscience is indeed one of the definitions for the god you are arguing against then how can you logically argue for suffering as a proof that such a god is not loving? Perhaps such a god knows more (actually would know more) about the full nature and purposes of suffering better than you.

It would seem to me that you would first have to somehow disprove the premise that such a god is all knowing before showing that such a god is not loving. I am not sure how you could do that without running into any number of potential contraditions yourself. But hey, it may be possible. :shrug:

edit update: I did not realize that the above observation was actually being touched upon (in a somewhat different context and perhaps brought out more intelligently than I could write it) in another current ongoing thread when I posted my above comments:

Dunemeister said:
Of course, you can always complain that this seems overly convoluted and complicated and God could have (because he's omnipotent and omniscient) have created things differently. I'm not so sure, and it's not because I deny any of his omnis. But to get into this more, I need to turn to your arguments. First, take "(A) Reduced NS only." You can "imagine" such a world only because you abstract away all the details. You can't possibly know all the details of how a world can be constructed, so you simply can't say with any humility that you can imagine a lawful world with less natural evil...
...Basically, this argument obtains its persuasiveness by cheating. The cheat is the philosophical presumption that a world described in a few sentences that do not logically contradict is possible to instantiate by a being with all power and knowledge. It may be that exactly because that being is all-knowing it would know that such a world is impossible despite the fact it impresses us (who the hell are we?) with its logical consistency (oh, brother!).
Click to expand...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/103370-dunemeister-2.html

I have only begun to read that thread (looks like some good dialogue resulting from it - for how long who knows :)) so I am intrested to see how you responded to these and some of his other comments.
 
Last edited:
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
kingdombuilder said:
One of the premises is that God is omniscient (all-knowing). Are you or anyone else who takes the same position as you on this particular argument claiming to know more than a being who is premised to be all knowing? If there is a being who is all knowing then it seems pretty arrogant to argue that there is no good purpose in suffering. In other words, if omniscience is indeed one of the definitions for the god you are arguing against then how can you logically argue for suffering as a proof that such a god is not loving? Perhaps such a god knows more (actually would know more) about the full nature and purposes of suffering better than you.

It would seem to me that you would first have to somehow disprove the premise that such a god is all knowing before showing that such a god is not loving. I am not sure how you could do that without running into any number of potential contraditions yourself. But hey, it may be possible. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding the problem with why special pleading is fallacious.

There are (in general) two types of objections to arguments from epistemology:

1) De facto objections, which assert that the argument is false in reality

2) De jure objections, which assert that the argument can't be rationally made because the arguer has no justification or reason to believe it

Special pleading is a de jure fallacy, and pointing out that special pleading doesn't work is a de jure objection. It is completely within the realm of possibility that God has some inexplicable reason for suffering that causes it to be ultimately good: no one is disputing that.

What is disputed is asserting that such is the case without evidence. "Possible" doesn't mean "plausible," nor does it even defeat the logical contradiction entailed in the Problem of Evil.

Let me illustrate this with an example:

Bill: Boy, those clouds make it look like it's going to rain.
Ted: Nah, clouds have nothing to do with whether it will rain; it's actually magical leprechauns that cause it to rain.
Bill: What? Do you have any evidence for that assertion?
Ted: Nah, I'm just pointing out that it's possible.
Bill: But then you haven't really made an argument at all, since there are many things that are technically "possible."

Bill's objection at the end isn't a de facto objection to the existence of leprechauns, it's a de jure objection -- which is equally as valid. One is ontological, one is epistemic. You can point out possibilities all you like but if you haven't a shred of evidence for how they can even be conceived you don't have a position to argue from.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Thief said:
And where is the line drawn?
For those who believe?
Or for those who refuse to?
Click to expand...

Uh... benevolence entails not harming anyone or being negligent to them (allowing them to suffer) regardless of whether they believe. I don't see why you're still struggling with this.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Meow Mix said:
Uh... benevolence entails not harming anyone or being negligent to them (allowing them to suffer) regardless of whether they believe. I don't see why you're still struggling with this.
Click to expand...

Have you read my take on the book of Job?

If so...you know I don't struggle with your viewpoint of
'God's negligence'
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Thief said:
Have you read my take on the book of Job?

If so...you know I don't struggle with your viewpoint of
'God's negligence'
Click to expand...

Right, as we've noted several times, you resolve the problem of evil by dropping "benevolence" as one of God's attributes. :facepalm:
 
logician

logician

Well-Known Member
If a god is not benevolent, what's the point in worshipping it? Isn't love and goodness the goal of existence?
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
PolyHedral said:
Yes. That is what "benevolence" means.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.
Your perspective reduces God to an Almighty baby sitter.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This results in conditions.
It will be done unto you as you did unto others.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Thief said:
No it doesn't.
Your perspective reduces God to an Almighty baby sitter.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This results in conditions.
It will be done unto you as you did unto others.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain leukemia kids or Down's Syndrome. Etc. Your God still sounds like a jerk until that's explained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top