Is this view refutable?

[JerryL]

Yes indeed! In fact The Exodus story has YHVH actually saying he is NOT going to let Pharaoh let the people go - SO THAT HE CAN DO HIS SPECIAL EFFECTS.

At the time of the writing, Jehovia was not viewed as the only God. He was viewed as the God of the Hebrews and was proving himself more powerful than the Egyptian gods (recall, the magicians *did* turn their staffs into snakes).

It is these stories that proved to me that the Bible is just the patriarchal ramblings of men.

That's pretty sexist of you to say.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

Yes indeed! In fact The Exodus story has YHVH actually saying he is NOT going to let Pharaoh let the people go - SO THAT HE CAN DO HIS SPECIAL EFFECTS.

At the time of the writing, Jehovia was not viewed as the only God. He was viewed as the God of the Hebrews and was proving himself more powerful than the Egyptian gods (recall, the magicians *did* turn their staffs into snakes).

ING - He wasn't proving anything - that is myth.

Also, - what does that have to do with what I said? In those verses it says he SAID he was not going to LET Pharaoh let the people go. - then he tortures and murders the people for not letting them go.

I wouldn't follow such a horrific murdering God.

*

It is these stories that proved to me that the Bible is just the patriarchal ramblings of men.

That's pretty sexist of you to say.

How would the truth be sexist?

The Bible "events" took place in patriarchal times, and it was also written down in patriarchal times - BY MEN.

*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He is saying that even though God is not omnipotent God does have control over evil.

Then God's omnipotence (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.

 

[Mister Emu]

I have stated it is not possible for a deity to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, AND allow suffering.

I'd suggest you look up the writings of someone more eloquent than I, like Plantinga...

The refutation basically goes something like this:
The best world is a world in which moral good is produced. Moral good cannot be produced without the opportunity for moral evil. Therefore, a world in which evil is allowed to exist is the best possible world.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Clearly if you believe God created everything, he opted to create evil. He didn't have to do so,...

And if the options were to create everything (including what you designate as evil) and create nothing?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'd suggest you look up the writings of someone more eloquent than I, like Plantinga...

The refutation basically goes something like this:
The best world is a world in which moral good is produced. Moral good cannot be produced without the opportunity for moral evil. Therefore, a world in which evil is allowed to exist is the best possible world.

Sounds a little like a non sequitur run amok.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There aren't a lot of deists out there going door to door trying to convert people either, nor are there deists out trying to block gay marriage, trying to shove their beliefs down people's throats or trying to get them mandated by law. If there were, more atheists would be out trying to refute deism. And while you're right, it's easy to design a god that can't be refuted, it can't be defended either. No gods can. The fact that there is no objective evidence for any gods is sufficient reason for a rational person to reject belief in all of them. That includes deistic gods.

Yup. I think we're in total agreement. I'll try and explain a little more clearly what I meant;

In general terms, refuting Gods is kinda a backwards way to look at things, since you can spend your whole life refuting Gods, and still miss some. Besides this, refuting all Gods is not possible (with the simple example being Deism), so what is it ultimately meant to achieve?

In some cases, obviously, refuting a version of God IS useful, if trying to get someone to understand your position, or if arguing against harmful belief structures, etc.

So my question was pretty literal. Why does nazz feel like this version of God needs to be refuted? Is the particular Christian demonstrating some harmful or negative actions due to their beliefs? If so, perhaps those could be more specifically examined, rather than tackling God as a whole, when a 'God of the Gaps' model may be at play.

Equally, if the argument is more academic, it might be worth simply admitting that not all versions of God(s) can be logically refuted.

 

[Cephus]

And if the options were to create everything (including what you designate as evil) and create nothing?

So God is weak and limited? What kind of a God is that?

 

[Cephus]

In general terms, refuting Gods is kinda a backwards way to look at things, since you can spend your whole life refuting Gods, and still miss some. Besides this, refuting all Gods is not possible (with the simple example being Deism), so what is it ultimately meant to achieve?

There's no point in refuting gods that have never been demonstrated to be real in the first place. I have no obligation to refute gods, any more than I need to refute unicorns and leprechauns. To quote Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." However, you are right that...

In some cases, obviously, refuting a version of God IS useful, if trying to get someone to understand your position, or if arguing against harmful belief structures, etc.

In fact, I'd argue that all irrational beliefs are harmful belief structures and all beliefs in objectively unsupported ideas, particularly ideas that call for you to live in a certain way or think in a certain way, are most certainly harmful. This is why it is important to rationally consider what you believe and why you believe it and to reject things which are believed for poor reasons. All gods are easily refuted because no gods can be rationally supported and rational people do not accept things for which there is no evidence.

So my question was pretty literal. Why does nazz feel like this version of God needs to be refuted? Is the particular Christian demonstrating some harmful or negative actions due to their beliefs? If so, perhaps those could be more specifically examined, rather than tackling God as a whole, when a 'God of the Gaps' model may be at play.

Equally, if the argument is more academic, it might be worth simply admitting that not all versions of God(s) can be logically refuted.

It really doesn't matter which god model is being used, none of them are defensible intellectually. If they cannot be defended intellectually, they ought to be rejected until such evidence can be presented. I don't really care about the ramifications of the beliefs themselves, although certainly there are a lot of really, really dangerous beliefs being supported by religious believers, I care if the belief itself is valid and factually true. No evidence means nobody ought to believe it and anyone who does is being irrational.

 

[Sabour]

I've been debating some Christians in another forum about the problem of evil. I have stated it is not possible for a deity to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, AND allow suffering. I think that is a given so I don't want to debate that. However there is one Christian who says he believes God is omnibenevolent but not omnipotent and that God allows suffering for reason we don't and perhaps cannot understand. I don't see a way to refute that as a possibility. Does anyone else see any possible refutation?

Also if anyone else takes this view I would ask why you might believe it to be true.

If you want to judge a religion or say your opinion about it one has to know everything about it.

God is omnipotent and there is suffering in the world. Is that a contradiction? No it is not. Just because God can do anything doesn't mean He does anything we would think of. What we have to know about Christianity in that case is why according to Christianity God would allow suffering if God is able to remove it.

 

[Renji]

I've been debating some Christians in another forum about the problem of evil. I have stated it is not possible for a deity to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, AND allow suffering. I think that is a given so I don't want to debate that. However there is one Christian who says he believes God is omnibenevolent but not omnipotent and that God allows suffering for reason we don't and perhaps cannot understand. I don't see a way to refute that as a possibility. Does anyone else see any possible refutation?

Also if anyone else takes this view I would ask why you might believe it to be true.

Okay so, I believe that this 'god' is an epitome of all wisdom, knowledge and power for those who believe in him. If so, how come that such a powerful and all-knowing being isn't able (or isn't doing something) to stop evil things in this world? I think that argument is quite valid argument. And yeah, how can you know that a being is omnipotent (or not), omniscient, etc given the fact that you do not know about his existence at all?

 

[JerryL]

How would the truth be sexist?

The Bible "events" took place in patriarchal times, and it was also written down in patriarchal times - BY MEN.

*

1) The claim that the stories prove men wrote them (they don't).
2) The claim that the story referenced (Moses and Pharoh) is a particularly patriarchal story.
3) Discriminatory language (as if I had said "ramblings of some ignorant girl").

 

[Etritonakin]

If we are talking about the God of the bible, he takes full responsibility for the present situation -is quoted as saying he is accountable to himself -and holds us accountable when we are responsible for certain things.

He stated that he has declared the end from the beginning -and that he will indeed take away all sorrow, make all things new, and even destroy death.

In order to reproduce himself -his righteous character in us -and his creativity, we must overcome evil so the potential for it is eradicated. We must willingly submit our power of choice and creativity to his government -so that there may be necessary order.

This required a learning process -experience making choices -which meant things would get messy.

Otherwise we would be like programmed robots -and not able to be truly creative.

 

[Sees]

I would think the "God of the Bible" is much more likely to be omnipotent than omnibenevolent. Neither one really matches up or applies in my opinion - but omnipotence seems more characteristic.

Also, neither quality/attribute demands constant and consistent expression/manifestation outside of philosophical games.

I make my own children "suffer" at times, not because of cruelty or inability.

 

[Etritonakin]

Omnibenevolent......

If this is defined as wanting the best for all, then I'd say it definitely applies.

God knows that the end state will be far better than the process -and even says the former things -temporarily necessary to bring about the end state -will not even be brought to mind.

God has good will toward even those who rebel against him. Christ gave us the parable of the prodigal son to show this.

…11My son, do not reject the discipline of the LORD Or loathe His reproof, 12For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.


As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

 

[nazz]

If God is not omnipotent, the issue is that God CAN"T prevent suffering. Why then, do we call him God?

Sorry that does not follow. One would need a lot of power to prevent all suffering but one would not need unlimited power.

 

[nazz]

I've heard a similar argument. Not often, but I've heard it.
No, I don't think it's easily refuted, but a couple of additional points;

1) Inability to refute it assumes there is consistency. Claiming a lack of omnipotence is one thing, but there should be some coherence between arguments showing what power God DOES have, and what he does not. It would strike me as strange, for example, if he argued on the one hand that God created all matter, and on the other hand said that God has no ability to control any aspect of creation, like animal design. But, his argument may FURTHER include non-intervention in evolution, or some such. That would raise some questions, to my mind, but would again make it difficult to refute.

2) Why do you feel the need/desire to refute it? I can't refute Deism, for example, but don't feel any less an atheist for all that. It's quite easy to design a God which can't be refuted.

Yes, good point with #1. As for #2 I don't need to refute it. But if there was a valid refutation I would like to know what it was. Then that possibility could be eliminated. I'm a theist as you may recall.

 

[nazz]

I'd suggest you look up the writings of someone more eloquent than I, like Plantinga...

The refutation basically goes something like this:
The best world is a world in which moral good is produced. Moral good cannot be produced without the opportunity for moral evil. Therefore, a world in which evil is allowed to exist is the best possible world.

As I said I don't want to get sidetracked into that debate but I don't buy that argument for a minute.

 

[Orbit]

Sorry that does not follow. One would need a lot of power to prevent all suffering but one would not need unlimited power.

If God doesn't have the power to prevent evil, why do we call him God? Aren't Gods powerful by definition?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, good point with #1. As for #2 I don't need to refute it. But if there was a valid refutation I would like to know what it was. Then that possibility could be eliminated. I'm a theist as you may recall.

Yep, I know you're a theist, big fella. We've had some good discussions previously, I seem to recall.
My point wasn't supposed to be applicable to theists or atheists only. Really, I think attacking specific arguments, or identifying inconsistencies would be the way to go if you were trying to refute, but...might not be possible.