Is God good? Is God loving?

[Sheldon]

In my opinion if a person believes a god doesn't exists, it can be neither good or evil, its nonexistent.

That is true, though atheism is not a belief of course, it is the lack or absence of a belief.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe that in the future. When all people know God - for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea - everyone will follow God's teachings and laws and human suffering will be minimized. That is what is meant by the new Earth.

Do you believe it will reverse global warming? Only the effects of that will cause quite a bit of suffering in the future, and we can demonstrate objective evidence for that claim, so what evidence can you demonstrate for you claim this suffering isn't going to happen?

 

[firedragon]

I have tried to google the encyclopedia you have mentioned specifically but it was locked behind a pay wall. I find it weird that someone would use modal logic terminology in a way that it is not modal logic though.

Lol. Mate, that's not modal logic terminology. The 'necessary' or possibility foundation in modal logic is not "terminology", it is the foundation of modal logic.

The necessary being is not the definition of modal logic, it is the definition of a necessary being.

If you dont know something, ask, rather than making such embarrassing statements, and when someone tells you to do some research dont keep repeating the same thing.

This is the problem with many people who are not trained or aware of things but wish to just show as if they do. I didnt say any of this for several posts hoping you would do some research prior to making such statements.

The initial post you responded to I explained what you seek concisely. If you have the humility, you would go back and read carefully in order to understand just simple fundamentals.

 

[firedragon]

After checking the entry in the Stanford's encyclopedia I am absolutely certain you are using the terminology wrong:

Contingent things being caused by a necessary being is a conclusion of the argument, but not the definition per se of what it means to be contingent.

Read more.

 

[Koldo]

Lol. Mate, that's not modal logic terminology. The 'necessary' or possibility foundation in modal logic is not "terminology", it is the foundation of modal logic.

The necessary being is not the definition of modal logic, it is the definition of a necessary being.

If you dont know something, ask, rather than making such embarrassing statements, and when someone tells you to do some research dont keep repeating the same thing.

This is the problem with many people who are not trained or aware of things but wish to just show as if they do. I didnt say any of this for several posts hoping you would do some research prior to making such statements.

The initial post you responded to I explained what you seek concisely. If you have the humility, you would go back and read carefully in order to understand just simple fundamentals.

Let me put it this way:

To say that something is contingent in ordinary usage is to say that it depends on something else in order to happen. This is not what being contingent means in modal logic.

This is why you thought that it was obvious that something being contingent entailed that it depended on something else to exist. You think the word 'contingent' has the same ordinary meaning in modal logic, but it does not. It merely means that something is true in our world, but not in all possible worlds.

I should have realized what was going on sooner, but I did not. Better latter than never, I guess.

 

[firedragon]

To say that something is contingent in ordinary usage is to say that it depends on something else in order to happen. This is not what being contingent means in modal logic.

I didnt say "being contingent". I said "contingent being".

And the sentence you made above is not "modal logic". It is an attempt in philosophy.

This is why you thought that it was obvious that something being contingent entailed that it depended on something else to exist.

That is the definition of a contingent being. And that is not "my thought", it is definition.

Please, do read more prior to attempt at debunking people.

Cheers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What I have found, is that one has to submit to faith in what God has offered, to find an inner peace on this subject.
Do you not see the issue faced with that statement? That quoted statement would make many hundreds of posts that you have made, as null and void.
Have we not posted many times that the proof of God is the Messenger, the proof of the Messenger is their Person, their life and their Message from God, which in turn becomes the Scriptures.

I found peace when I finally abandoned the Gods, otherwise I was in a cloud of doubts.
You have to decide the issue between two of you.
You have (posted) and so have others. The problem is that you do not provide any evidence.

Then it is the life of the Messenger and their Person as they are their Message.
In this age we are gifted the proof other than the Messenger, Baha'u'llah gifted us the person and life of Abdul'baha. Abdul'baha is the objective proof you are asking for. There has been no greater example.

And Abdul Baha gifted us the person and life of Shoghi. Father, son and grandson. Shoghi again, is the objective proof. Proof of what?

 

[Sheldon]

That can never be established, only believed...
So the question is: IF God exists, is God good and loving?

Well that's one question, but a more pertinent question for me would be, how can one make assertions about the nature of a deity if it's very existence can't be established? We might as well be arguing about unicorn husbandry.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We offer the Message as proof and evidence of Baha’u’llah, if it is proof and evidence of Baha’u’llah, then it is proof of God, as Baha’u’llah is all we can know of God.

Anything new in the message other than that he himself is a messenger sent by Allah? That is circular reasoning. What he says about himself cannot be the proof. What he said is no proof of existence of Allah.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If God is good and God is loving what is the evidence? This is all about evidence. I don’t want to see any scriptures because they are not evidence.

Look around you in this world. What evidence do you see that would indicate that a good/loving God exists? I am trying to be objective about this rather than being influenced by my own feelings and life experiences which do not constitute evidence.

People from all walks of life/all times writing scriptures (including prayer and poetry) that God is evident to them is not evidence of what?

Babies.

Christians.

Toys.

Breathing.

Beauty.

Pizza.

 

[viole]

The existence of all things and their maintenance in existence, to me that is full evidence of it (presuming the existence of God).

Looks like children leukaemia and bone cancer are maintained pretty well, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

People from all walks of life/all times writing scriptures (including prayer and poetry) that God is evident to them is not evidence of what?

Babies.

Christians.

Toys.

Breathing.

Beauty.

Pizza.

Parasitic wasps

Children cancer

Malaria mosquitos

Bacteria making children blind

Genetic diseases

Ugliness


Now, let me guess, these are not from God, but from sin. Which would immediately show that your alleged evidence of God already assumes exceptions that can only be explained by assuming the conclusion in the premises, together with an enormous theological baggage.

Ergo, any person with a talent for very basics rationality, would identify that immediately as question begging.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Lain]

Looks like children leukaemia and bone cancer are maintained pretty well, too.

Ciao

- viole

Amen to that sister.

 

[viole]

Amen to that sister.

Praise the Lord for keeping them, bro.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Amen to that sister.

If that is the case, can you tell me something that is not maintained?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Lain]

If that is the case, can you tell me something that is not maintained?

Ciao

- viole

Something not maintained by God or just not maintained in general?

For the latter, my house is a mess and I need to clean it, I didn't maintain it well.

For the former, nothing really I'd think. It all falls under God's Providence to me and serves His own end, which is by definition good. It's not like He let something slip by that He didn't see from eternity or is beyond His control.

 

[viole]

If God is good and God is loving what is the evidence? This is all about evidence. I don’t want to see any scriptures because they are not evidence.

Look around you in this world. What evidence do you see that would indicate that a good/loving God exists? I am trying to be objective about this rather than being influenced by my own feelings and life experiences which do not constitute evidence.

I would say, if we consider the average living being with a nervous system that lives, or lived, that God, assuming He exists, is definitely evil.

I am aware that would immediately raise the problem of Good. Ergo, why an evil God would allow some instances of Good, but I am sure that there are answers to that, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sheldon]

I do not agree that it is is the ego of atheists that prevents them from seeing the glory of God although it might be their ego that prevents them from even looking at the evidence.

Well I can't speak for other atheists, but I've not seen any objective evidence, only bare subjective claims, when so called evidence is cited, it amounts to no more than other theists making subjective unevidenced claims.

If my ego were a barrier to my seeing any deity existed, then any deity that created me would be culpable for that, obviously. Though I find the claim extremely dubious, it is ego that stops theists believing in all the other deities?

 

[viole]

Something not maintained by God or just not maintained in general?

For the latter, my house is a mess and I need to clean it, I didn't maintain it well.

For the former, nothing really I'd think. It all falls under God's Providence to me and serves His own end, which is by definition good. It's not like He let something slip by that He didn't see from eternity or is beyond His control.

So, for you a child who painfully dies of cancer, or is shot by an SS officer exercising shooting skills on moving objects, is serving God's providence? And it is therefore ultimately good?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Lain]

I would say, if we consider the average living being with a nervous system that lives, or lived, that God, assuming He exists, is evil.

I am aware that would immediately raise the problem of Good. Ergo, why an evil God would allow some instances of Good, but I am sure that are answers to that, too.

Ciao

- viole

There may very well be answers to that. Due to how I define evil (privation of good) it is kind of inconceivable to call God's Persons or acts evil. Like the LPT it is one philosophical idea that goes over my head, just like when people call Him "unjust," which to me is a quite absurd thing to say, as if He is in debt to something He made.