Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 2)

[samtonga43]

Which tartan is your kilt, Kilted Heathen?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Mac Gregor!

Think I'm going to mosey over to Part 3, and address the PoE from a Heathen perspective.

 

[Koldo]

Ask me if I care what you accept. There are no logical contradictions for those of us who actually know something about the real God rather than the imaginary god they made up in their head. You think you can take one attribute if God – omnipotence – to prove that God is not benevolent because if He was he would have some something differently because He has all power. What blows your entire argument out of the water is that God is omniscient, so God knows more than you can ever know about how to create a world, and that means that whatever God did has to be what was best for humans. You think you can invoke malevolence to around this, as if you can know more than all the Holy Books that say that God is benevolent. It is funny to watch but sad to see.

It is omniscience that doesn't excuse God from not knowing how to properly create a world where suffering doesn't exist.

It does matter because the afterlife exists and it is the main act of the play.

It is inconsequential to the argument being made.
It is like saying: the main act of play are the toys you get to play with after you get raped.

You mean something that you don’t believe exists.

Potato, potato.

No fact about the material world would convince me that God is not benevolent because that is not how I know that God is benevolent. I know the only way I can ever know anything about God, from various scriptures. Anything I might believe shows that God is not benevolent would simply be a projection of my own ego. That is what is happening on this thread, a bunch of egotistical people who think they know more than ALL the scriptures that have been revealed by God throughout the ages. It is rather sad but also quite tragic.

This is actually quite funny because sometimes you ask for evidence but now you say that no evidence could possibly exist to you. Whenever you ask for evidence I will remind you of this.

It would be more logical to just say that there is no God at all than to be saying you know more than God about how He should have created the world.

I can only claim that God should have created the world in a given because of the purported attributes. It follows logically. Give me different attributes and the conclusion just might be different.

 

[Koldo]

I do not need to show the reason why the differences between god and humans. God is not a human and a human is not God, that is why God and humans are different.

God is: Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, Immaterial, Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient.

Humans are different from God because humans are not Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, or Immaterial, but humans can have some of the attributes of God such as Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient since humans were made in the image of God.

You need to justify in what meaningful way this difference is relevant to say I can't reasonably expect a benevolent god to behave in a way that is similar to a benevolent human.

When you say that suffering is unwanted by a benevolent god what you are doing is speaking for what a benevolent God would want. I do not care what kind of claim you call it, it is a claim you can never prove, thus it is a bald assertion. It is based solely upon your expectations of what a benevolent God would want.

Your claim can be contradicted by the evidence that shows that suffering can be beneficial to humans, as testified to by those humans. That means that God is benevolent for allowing suffering to exist.

This again shows you don't understand the argument. What I am saying is that it is a claim that doesn't require proof for there is no evidence that can support nor contradict it. For it follows logically from omnibenevolence, a priori, that an omnibenevolent being wouldn't want suffering.
Please only answer to this if you read about the distinction between a priori and a posteriori.

Just to put it in another way: What I am saying is the same as saying that a bachelor can not be married and remain a bachelor. It doesn't even make sense to ask for evidence.

In the same way, it doesn't make sense to ask for evidence that an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want suffering of any kind. For anyone that wants suffering to exist is not omnibenevolent. There would be an inherent logical contradiction.

 

[Koldo]

Omnibenevolence would not compel God towards preventing suffering because suffering is beneficial to humans. Not only that, but trials are gifts from God.

TRIALS A GIFT FROM GOD

“Thou hast written concerning the tests that have come upon thee. To the sincere ones, tests are as a gift from God, the Exalted, for a heroic person hasteneth, with the utmost joy and gladness, to the tests of a violent battlefield, but the coward is afraid and trembles and utters moaning and lamentation. Likewise, an expert student prepareth and memorizeth his lessons and exercises with the utmost effort, and in the day of examination he appeareth with infinite joy before the master. Likewise, the pure gold shineth radiantly in the fire of test. Consequently, it is made clear that for holy souls, trials are as the gift of God, the Exalted; but for weak souls they are an unexpected calamity. This test is just as thou hast written: it removeth the rust of egotism from the mirror of the heart until the Sun of Truth may shine therein. For, no veil is greater than egotism and no matter how thin that covering may be, yet it will finally veil man entirely and prevent him from receiving a portion from the eternal bounty.”
Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 371-372

It does not MATTER if the benefits if suffering could have been achieved in another way.

God is all-knowing and all-wise so God has to know the BEST way to achieve the results gained by suffering. That means that whatever way God chose had to be the best way and since God chose suffering that has to be the best way.

But how can it be the best way if suffering is unnecessary to achieve his goals?

The best way to an omnibenevolent God has to be a way where suffering is always prevented, otherwise he is not omnibenevolent.

 

[samtonga43]

Mac Gregor!

A child of the mist...

 

[Trailblazer]

Here is what your fellow Bahai said:
"Baha'u'llah does say that in one sense any Manifestation can call Himself God as He perfectly represents all of God's attributes. He is also God's servant in another sense. In fact he can say He is God because He is God's complete servant."

That is true, all the Manifestations of God can say they are God in the sense that they perfectly reflect all of God's attributes, and they are also God's complete Servants.....

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.......

And were they to say, “We are the Servants of God,” this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 54-55

..... but that does not mean that Baha'u'llah actually wrote what is in those quotes you posted, and that is the issue at hand.
I have asked Truthseeker9 to look into this matter further.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is omniscience that doesn't excuse God from not knowing how to properly create a world where suffering doesn't exist.

Omniscience means that God knows more than you know regarding how to properly create a world.
You cannot know more than God since it is logically impossible to know more than everything.

God needs no excuses because God is Infallible so God cannot make any mistakes. Only humans can make mistakes since they are fallible.

It is inconsequential to the argument being made.
It is like saying: the main act of play are the toys you get to play with after you get raped.

That is the fallacy of false equivalence because toys are not equivalent to heaven.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
False equivalence - Wikipedia

This is actually quite funny because sometimes you ask for evidence but now you say that no evidence could possibly exist to you. Whenever you ask for evidence I will remind you of this.

I was asking you if you have any evidence that proves that God is not benevolent.

I said: No fact about the material world would convince me that God is not benevolent because that is not how I know that God is benevolent. I know the only way I can ever know anything about God, from various scriptures. Anything I might believe shows that God is not benevolent would simply be a projection of my own ego.

I can only claim that God should have created the world in a given because of the purported attributes. It follows logically. Give me different attributes and the conclusion just might be different.

What God could have done given His attributes is not the same as what God should have done.

Given the attribute of Omnipotence, God could have created the world any way he chose to.
Given the attribute of Omniscience God knew all available options and chose the best option of all available options.
Given the attribute of Infallibility God could not fail to select the best option since God cannot make mistakes.

CONCLUSION:

Just because God could have created the world differently that does not mean that God should have created the world differently. The minute anyone says "God should have" done something differently they are saying they know more than God, which is logically impossible.

 

[Koldo]

Omniscience means that God knows more than you know regarding how to properly create a world.
You cannot know more than God since it is logically impossible to know more than everything.

God needs no excuses because God is Infallible so God cannot make any mistakes. Only humans can make mistakes since they are fallible.

If God knew he was creating a world where suffering would exist then he is not omnibenevolent. I don't question that an omniscient and omnibenevolent god would know better than me how to create a world without suffering.

That is the fallacy of false equivalence because toys are not equivalent to heaven.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
False equivalence - Wikipedia

Holy...
It is just an analogy to make my point understood.
I am not saying the heavens is just like literal toys.
The whole "here, let me justify your rape with a lot of happiness after you die" is as silly as giving toys to a child that has been raped in a way to justify the rape.

I was asking you if you have any evidence that proves that God is not benevolent.

I said: No fact about the material world would convince me that God is not benevolent because that is not how I know that God is benevolent. I know the only way I can ever know anything about God, from various scriptures. Anything I might believe shows that God is not benevolent would simply be a projection of my own ego.

1) As I have said a lot of times already: no evidence could ever deny nor support that part of my argument.

2) It is beyond silly to ask me for evidence when you have told me yourself that no evidence could even possibly exist.

What God could have done given His attributes is not the same as what God should have done.

Given the attribute of Omnipotence, God could have created the world any way he chose to.
Given the attribute of Omniscience God knew all available options and chose the best option of all available options.
Given the attribute of Infallibility God could not fail to select the best option since God cannot make mistakes.

CONCLUSION:

Just because God could have created the world differently that does not mean that God should have created the world differently. The minute anyone says "God should have" done something differently they are saying they know more than God, which is logically impossible.

Here is the kicker though:

Omnipotence entails merely the power to do things and there is no should involved.
Omniscient entails merely the knowledge over things and there is no should involved.
However, omnibenevolence does entail what God should do because God can not act in a way that is contrary to omnibenevolence and remain omnibenevolent. Creating a world where suffering exists is contrary to omnibenevolence.

 

[Trailblazer]

You need to justify in what meaningful way this difference is relevant to say I can't reasonably expect a benevolent god to behave in a way that is similar to a benevolent human.

God is not a human so God cannot be expected to act like a human. What would be considered benevolent for God to do would not be the same as what would be considered benevolent for a human to do.

God is spirit and humans are flesh. God cannot materialize on earth and do the things humans do.
God never deals with humans directly, He works through mediators who are His Messengers.

The way God demonstrates His benevolence is by sending Messengers who bring a message to humanity that will assist them in eradicating their own suffering.

For it follows logically from omnibenevolence, a priori, that an omnibenevolent being wouldn't want suffering.
Please only answer to this if you read about the distinction between a priori and a posteriori.

No, it does not logically follow at all since suffering is beneficial for humans, this God is benevolent for allowing suffering.

Just to put it in another way: What I am saying is the same as saying that a bachelor can not be married and remain a bachelor. It doesn't even make sense to ask for evidence.

In the same way, it doesn't make sense to ask for evidence that an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want suffering of any kind. For anyone that wants suffering to exist is not omnibenevolent. There would be an inherent logical contradiction.

When you say that "anyone that wants suffering to exist is not omnibenevolent" that is only YOUR personal opinion, not a fact and it is not logical because what you are saying is based solely upon your personal opinion that suffering is not benevolent.

-- All this hinges on what can be considered benevolent (kind and fair) for God to do.

-- You do not believe it is kind and fair for God to allow suffering but I believe it is kind and fair.

-- Who is right and who is wrong? You have a personal opinion and I have scriptures.

Benevolent
If you describe a person in authority as benevolent, you mean that they are kind and fair.
The company has proved to be a most benevolent employer.
Benevolent definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Benevolent
1. a. Characterized by or given to doing good: "a benevolent philanthropist who donated the funds to found the town library" (Willie Morris).
benevolent

 

[Trailblazer]

But how can it be the best way if suffering is unnecessary to achieve his goals?

Suffering is not only necessary but also beneficial for humans.

The very minute you are say that God should have done it differently you are claiming to know more than God, which is logically impossible. It is also highly arrogant to think you know more than God.

The best way to an omnibenevolent God has to be a way where suffering is always prevented, otherwise he is not omnibenevolent.

You cannot possibly ever know the best way because you are not all-knowing or all-wise.
Case closed.

Allowing suffering is benevolent because it is beneficial for humans. Many people will attest to this.

 

[Koldo]

God is not a human so God cannot be expected to act like a human. What would be considered benevolent for God to do would not be the same as what would be considered benevolent for a human to do.

Why not? You still haven't explained.

No, it does not logically follow at all since suffering is beneficial for humans, this God is benevolent for allowing suffering.

When you say that "anyone that wants suffering to exist is not omnibenevolent" that is only YOUR personal opinion, not a fact and it is not logical because what you are saying is based solely upon your personal opinion that suffering is not benevolent.

-- All this hinges on what can be considered benevolent (kind and fair) for God to do.

-- You do not believe it is kind and fair for God to allow suffering but I believe it is kind and fair.

-- Who is right and who is wrong? You have a personal opinion and I have scriptures.

Benevolent
If you describe a person in authority as benevolent, you mean that they are kind and fair.
The company has proved to be a most benevolent employer.
Benevolent definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Benevolent
1. a. Characterized by or given to doing good: "a benevolent philanthropist who donated the funds to found the town library" (Willie Morris).
benevolent

Let me try a different approach.
What does it mean to be malevolant, both conceptually and in practice? Exemplify what it means to be malevolant.

 

[Koldo]

Suffering is not only necessary but also beneficial for humans.

The very minute you are say that God should have done it differently you are claiming to know more than God, which is logically impossible. It is also highly arrogant to think you know more than God.

Wait. How can suffering be necessary considering that God is omnipotent?

You cannot possibly ever know the best way because you are not all-knowing or all-wise.
Case closed.

Allowing suffering is benevolent because it is beneficial for humans. Many people will attest to this.

I don't have to be omniscient to know that a square has to have four sides to be called a square. It is the same thing.

Saying that an omnibenevolent god wouldn't want to prevent suffering is like saying that a square can have six sides.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Not to toot my own horn, but I made a pretty successful and happy city in Sim City. No crime, no disasters; a pure Utopia. Wasn't that hard, really. Hell, the citizens of New Arkona didn't even need to worship me.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God knew he was creating a world where suffering would exist then he is not omnibenevolent.

That is nothing more than a personal opinion, not a fact. Why do you keep repeating it?

I don't question that an omniscient and omnibenevolent god would know better than me how to create a world without suffering.

No, you are saying you know "better" than God regarding how God should have created the world (with no suffering) which is logically impossible since you cannot know better than an all-knowing God.

Holy...
It is just an analogy to make my point understood.
I am not saying the heavens is just like literal toys.
The whole "here, let me justify your rape with a lot of happiness after you die" is as silly as giving toys to a child that has been raped in a way to justify the rape.

I am not trying to justify a rape because I do not need to. It is the rapist you needs to try to justify it. God isn't involved.

Omnipotence entails merely the power to do things and there is no should involved.
Omniscient entails merely the knowledge over things and there is no should involved.
However, omnibenevolence does entail what God should do because God can not act in a way that is contrary to omnibenevolence and remain omnibenevolent. Creating a world where suffering exists is contrary to omnibenevolence.

It is not contrary to omnibenevolence if suffering is GOOD for people.
Since many people will testify that their suffering had been GOOD for them that means it is GOOD for some people, which means suffering is a GOOD thing.

Your statement that "Creating a world where suffering exists is contrary to omnibenevolence" is a bald assertion, since you even admitted you have no evidence to prove it is true.

Your argument is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

Why not? You still haven't explained.

I did explain. God is not a human so God cannot be expected to ACT line a human
What is so difficult about that to understand?

Let me try a different approach.
What does it mean to be malevolant, both conceptually and in practice? Exemplify what it means to be malevolant.

malevolent
having or showing a wish to do evil to others.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=malevolent+definition

Malevolent comes from the Latin word malevolens, which means "ill-disposed, spiteful"; its opposite is benevolent, which means "wishing good things for others." A malevolent person might display satisfaction at someone else's problems.

malevolent - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

 

[Trailblazer]

Wait. How can suffering be necessary considering that God is omnipotent?

God's omnipotence has nothing to do with whether suffering is necessary for humans to grow spiritually. Try again.

I don't have to be omniscient to know that a square has to have four sides to be called a square. It is the same thing.

Saying that an omnibenevolent god wouldn't want to prevent suffering is like saying that a square can have six sides.

No, it is not like saying that because suffering is beneficial for humans which means that God is benevolent.
I have evidence from people who say that suffering has helped them them in many ways.
You have nothing but a personal opinion.

The benevolent God does not want to prevent suffering because suffering is beneficial for spiritual growth.
Case closed.

 

[Koldo]

God's omnipotence has nothing to do with whether suffering is necessary for humans to grow spiritually. Try again.

Can God achieve the same goal without the suffering? If not, God is not omnipotent. If it is possible to God, then suffering is unnecessary.

No, it is not like saying that because suffering is beneficial for humans which means that God is benevolent.
I have evidence from people who say that suffering has helped them them in many ways.
You have nothing but a personal opinion.

The benevolent God does not want to prevent suffering because suffering is beneficial for spiritual growth.
Case closed.

1) I have told you I will remind you of this: You have told me that no evidence could convince you, so please stop bringing up evidence as if you actually cared about it on this subject.

2) It doesn't matter if you have evidence that people could somehow benefit from their sufferings. This is not contrary to my argument. An omnibenevolent wouldn't merely seek what's beneficial but rather what is the most beneficial. And suffering can not be the most beneficial because suffering by itself decreases our well-being.

 

[Koldo]

I did explain. God is not a human so God cannot be expected to ACT line a human
What is so difficult about that to understand?

Because by the same reasoning no one is like someone else and therefore we can not expect people to act like anyone else.

The problem is: you can't merely point out the differences. You need to explain why those differences render the comparison invalid.

malevolent
having or showing a wish to do evil to others.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=malevolent+definition

Malevolent comes from the Latin word malevolens, which means "ill-disposed, spiteful"; its opposite is benevolent, which means "wishing good things for others." A malevolent person might display satisfaction at someone else's problems.

malevolent - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

In practice, what's the difference though?
If Joe kills Brian through torturing him to death, how do you figure if Joe is malevolent or benevolent?

 

[Koldo]

That is nothing more than a personal opinion, not a fact. Why do you keep repeating it?

Because it is not an opinion. It is what follows logically from claiming that God is omnibenevolent.

No, you are saying you know "better" than God regarding how God should have created the world (with no suffering) which is logically impossible since you cannot know better than an all-knowing God.

Just to clarify: I don't know what would be the exact best way but I can know that current way is contrary to his goals, given the claimed attributes.
Omniscience is not required to figure this out, only logic.

I am not trying to justify a rape because I do not need to. It is the rapist you needs to try to justify it. God isn't involved.

Involved either by omission or design.

It is not contrary to omnibenevolence if suffering is GOOD for people.
Since many people will testify that their suffering had been GOOD for them that means it is GOOD for some people, which means suffering is a GOOD thing.

Your statement that "Creating a world where suffering exists is contrary to omnibenevolence" is a bald assertion, since you even admitted you have no evidence to prove it is true.

Your argument is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

It is one thing to don't understand an argument.
It is another to misrepresent it and then claim it is fallacious. Worst of all, by claiming it to be a fallacy that you don't even properly comprehend.