Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 2)

[The Kilted Heathen]

If Joe kills Brian through torturing him to death, how do you figure if Joe is malevolent or benevolent?

Clearly Joe is benevolent, because he eventually released Brian from his suffering. Obviously.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

God is not the one who is achieving the goal of acquiring spiritual qualities, humans are achieving the goal.
That is why I said: God's omnipotence has nothing to do with whether suffering is necessary for humans to grow spiritually

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.

When you say that suffering cannot be the most beneficial because suffering by itself decreases our well-being that is just an ego projection.

What role does suffering play in human life?

Suffering can make us more resilient, better able to endure hardships. Just as a muscle, in order to build up, must endure some pain, so our emotions must endure pain in order to strengthen. ... One of the most significant benefits of suffering is that it breeds a deep respect for reality, for what is.

The Role of Suffering | Wholebeing Institute

What is the benefit of suffering?

And experiencing such deep emotions, in difficult times, helps to make life richer in all sorts of ways. It not only deepens the impact we feel when we read a good book or see a good movie, for instance; it also makes our feelings of love--for a partner, a parent, a friend--that much richer.Mar 22, 2010

Benefits of Suffering - Making Sense Out of Suffering - Marie Claire

How does suffering make you stronger?

It builds our resilience and makes us emotionally stronger. During tough times, we feel weak and vulnerable with little self worth, but when we work through those tough times it makes us prepared for the next battle in our lives.Jan 9, 2019

Does Suffering Make Us Stronger and Lead to Success? - ResearchGate

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I already did that when I said I did explain. God is not a human so God cannot be expected to ACT like a human.

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?

Is it kind or fair to torture someone to death? Is Joe wishing good things for Brian?

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

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]

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

It does not logically follow since suffering is beneficial for people, making God benevolent for creating a world in which suffering exists.

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.

How do you know what God's goals are? You cannot know that with logic. You need scriptures to know anything about God.

The current way is congruent with God's goal which is to provide a way for humans to develop spiritual qualities.

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.

I know that fallacy like the back of my hand. I also know that you are deflecting because you could not respond and explain why what you said is not an argument from ignorance. This is not my first rodeo with atheists, I have been posting to them for over 8 years. That is why I can spot the argument from ignorance and the deflection tactics when I see it. Whenever atheists cannot respond and refute what I said they deflect instead. Atheists are as predictable as the fact that the sun will come up in the morning.

You can never prove that suffering is not good for people, and as such your entire argument that God cannot be benevolent because God allows suffering falls flat on its face. All you have is a personal opinion, but I have evidence, many people who say that suffering has been beneficial for them.

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.

 

[Truthseeker]

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."

Yes, I did say that, but apparently you didn't understand what I said, or perhaps I ddn't take care enough so would understand what I said.

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 name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. Thus, He hath revealed: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine!” And also He saith: “In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.” And were any of them to voice the utterance: “I am the Messenger of God,” He also speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth. Even as He saith: “Muḥammad is not the father of any man among you, but He is the Messenger of God.” Viewed in this light, they are all but Messengers of that ideal King, that unchangeable Essence. And were they all to proclaim: “I am the Seal of the Prophets,” they verily utter but the truth, beyond the faintest shadow of doubt. For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the “Beginning” and the “End,” the “First” and the “Last,” the “Seen” and “Hidden” — all of which pertain to Him Who is the innermost Spirit of Spirits and eternal Essence of Essences. 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. Thus in moments in which these Essences of being were deeply immersed beneath the oceans of ancient and everlasting holiness, or when they soared to the loftiest summits of divine mysteries, they claimed their utterance to be the Voice of divinity, the Call of God Himself.
Bahá’u’lláh, "The Kitáb-i-Íqán", 196

 

[Koldo]

God is not the one who is achieving the goal of acquiring spiritual qualities, humans are achieving the goal.
That is why I said: God's omnipotence has nothing to do with whether suffering is necessary for humans to grow spiritually

Was God powerful enough to create beings that didn't need to undergo suffering to acquire those qualities?

When you say that suffering cannot be the most beneficial because suffering by itself decreases our well-being that is just an ego projection.

What role does suffering play in human life?

Suffering can make us more resilient, better able to endure hardships. Just as a muscle, in order to build up, must endure some pain, so our emotions must endure pain in order to strengthen. ... One of the most significant benefits of suffering is that it breeds a deep respect for reality, for what is.

The Role of Suffering | Wholebeing Institute

What is the benefit of suffering?

And experiencing such deep emotions, in difficult times, helps to make life richer in all sorts of ways. It not only deepens the impact we feel when we read a good book or see a good movie, for instance; it also makes our feelings of love--for a partner, a parent, a friend--that much richer.Mar 22, 2010

Benefits of Suffering - Making Sense Out of Suffering - Marie Claire

How does suffering make you stronger?

It builds our resilience and makes us emotionally stronger. During tough times, we feel weak and vulnerable with little self worth, but when we work through those tough times it makes us prepared for the next battle in our lives.Jan 9, 2019

Does Suffering Make Us Stronger and Lead to Success? - ResearchGate

Here is the funny part: Half of what you mentioned is personal opinion while the other half has to do with being able to cope with hardships that don't have to exist since God is omnipotent.

Here is what is not personal opinion, and I can grab my dictionary if you tell me otherwise:

To suffer is to endure pain and distress. Well-being is to experience happiness and comfort. Those two experiences are opposite to one another. You can't be at the same time experiencing your utmost well-being and feeling the utmost suffering.

Think of it like this: Even when you claim that suffering is beneficial, you most certainly don't mean that suffering is beneficial as an end in itself, but rather as a mean to an end. This is clear from all your examples. The problem is that it is an unnecessary mean to an end if God is omnipotent because God could achieve the same end in another way.

 

[Koldo]

Clearly Joe is benevolent, because he eventually released Brian from his suffering. Obviously.

Obviously!!

 

[Koldo]

I already did that when I said I did explain. God is not a human so God cannot be expected to ACT like a human.

You can't merely point out the differences. You need to explain why those differences are relevant.

This would be like saying: Joe is tall and Brian is short therefore Joe is justified in torturing children, but Brian is not because he is short. On this example, I haven't offered a justification as to why being tall excuses Joe. You are doing the same thing.

Is it kind or fair to torture someone to death?

That's what I am asking you.

Is Joe wishing good things for Brian?

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

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

For the sake of the example, you don't know if Joe was wishing anything good or bad. How would you figure out if Joe was malevolent? You only know that Joe wasn't coerced into torturing Brian.

 

[Koldo]

How do you know what God's goals are? You cannot know that with logic. You need scriptures to know anything about God.

Omnibenevolence entails that everyone's well-being is a goal of God.

The current way is congruent with God's goal which is to provide a way for humans to develop spiritual qualities.

He can't have a goal that is contrary to his omnibenevolence.

I know that fallacy like the back of my hand. I also know that you are deflecting because you could not respond and explain why what you said is not an argument from ignorance. This is not my first rodeo with atheists, I have been posting to them for over 8 years. That is why I can spot the argument from ignorance and the deflection tactics when I see it. Whenever atheists cannot respond and refute what I said they deflect instead. Atheists are as predictable as the fact that the sun will come up in the morning.

You can never prove that suffering is not good for people, and as such your entire argument that God cannot be benevolent because God allows suffering falls flat on its face. All you have is a personal opinion, but I have evidence, many people who say that suffering has been beneficial for them.

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.

I have not deflected anything. I have already explained this part at least three times by now:

What's an argument from ignorance?
It is to state that something is the case because the opposite hasn't been proven true.

When I say that creating a world where suffering exists is contrary to omnibenevolence, this is an priori rationale. What I am saying is that this conclusion can be asserted independently from any experience because experience can neither support nor deny this conclusion, in the exact same way that I can claim there are no married bachelors. You don't need to look at the world to say there are no married bachelors.

So, when you say that I am making an argument from ignorance, you are not only asking me to provide evidence that there are no married bachelors, but you are also saying that I am claiming there are no married bachelors on the basis that no evidence has been found contrary to my claim. Do you understand how silly this sounds?

So if you want to argument against what I am saying at least do so in the proper manner, rather than by creating a strawman out of my words.

 

[Trailblazer]

Was God powerful enough to create beings that didn't need to undergo suffering to acquire those qualities?

He could have but He knew better since God is all-knowing.

Here is the funny part: Half of what you mentioned is personal opinion while the other half has to do with being able to cope with hardships that don't have to exist since God is omnipotent.

They do have to exist because you cannot control an omnipotent God and make them go away.
What about that do you NOT understand?

Here is what is not personal opinion, and I can grab my dictionary if you tell me otherwise:

To suffer is to endure pain and distress. Well-being is to experience happiness and comfort. Those two experiences are opposite to one another. You can't be at the same time experiencing your utmost well-being and feeling the utmost suffering.

So what? People can suffer sometimes and other times they can experience happiness and comfort. There is no reason to think that humans have to be happy all the time.

Think of it like this: Even when you claim that suffering is beneficial, you most certainly don't mean that suffering is beneficial as an end in itself, but rather as a mean to an end. This is clear from all your examples. The problem is that it is an unnecessary mean to an end if God is omnipotent because God could achieve the same end in another way.

Suffering is a means to an end.

It does not MATTER what God COULD have done. Suffering IS necessary because that is how God created the world.

Do you understand that "God is omnipotent so God could achieve the same end in another way" is a moot point because that is not what God chose to do? Do you understand that an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do?

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

What is the point of this conversation? It does not MATTER what God could have done so it is an utter waste of time to talk about it. Moreover, whenever you say that God should have done something differently you are saying you know more than God.
.
“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 284

 

[Trailblazer]

You can't merely point out the differences. You need to explain why those differences are relevant.

I already did that.

This would be like saying: Joe is tall and Brian is short therefore Joe is justified in torturing children, but Brian is not because he is short. On this example, I haven't offered a justification as to why being tall excuses Joe. You are doing the same thing.

How is this example relevant to God? God is not a human.
God is not a human so human to human analogies are the fallacy of false equivalence.

That's what I am asking you.

No, it is not kind or fair to torture someone to death.

For the sake of the example, you don't know if Joe was wishing anything good or bad. How would you figure out if Joe was malevolent? You only know that Joe wasn't coerced into torturing Brian.

How is this example relevant to God? God is not a human.

 

[Trailblazer]

Omnibenevolence entails that everyone's well-being is a goal of God.

He can't have a goal that is contrary to his omnibenevolence.

I never claimed that God is omnibenevolent. I believe that God is benevolent.

“He, verily, shall recompense the charitable, and doubly repay them for what they have bestowed. No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

 

[Koldo]

I never claimed that God is omnibenevolent. I believe that God is benevolent.

“He, verily, shall recompense the charitable, and doubly repay them for what they have bestowed. No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

Allow me to refresh your memory:

I removed the omni part because it is not in my scriptures but now that I have looked at the definitions I have to say that God is benevolent, so in my scriptures where it says God is benevolent it is a given it means omnibenevolent.

It is alright if you want to backpedal your way out of this. I just want to make sure I understand your current position: Do you mean God is not as benevolent as he could be and therefore that our well-being is not among his utmost priorities? Do you mean he is good but not really all that good to the point it wouldn't be accurate to say he is infinitely good?

If yes, there is nothing else to debate.
The problem of evil is an argument against a god concept that is quite specific.

 

[Koldo]

I already did that.

How is this example relevant to God? God is not a human.
God is not a human so human to human analogies are the fallacy of false equivalence.

Let me try it this way: Why can we compare humans to humans even though humans are different among themselves?

No, it is not kind or fair to torture someone to death.

Great. Here is the problem though: You have told me that no evidence could possibly convince you that God is not benevolent. What if we found evidence that God tortured someone to death?

How is this example relevant to God? God is not a human.

I am doing it this way so you get to tell me, in practice, the distinction between benevolence and malevolence. Not just conceptually as in a dictionary. So please, how would you figure out if Joe was malevolent?

 

[Koldo]

He could have but He knew better since God is all-knowing.

What does it mean to know better on this context? You can do A to get B. How can it be more efficient to do C to get P to get B? Or Z, Y, W...?

There is no more efficient way to achieve something than do it do it directly when you can achieve it instantly.

They do have to exist because you cannot control an omnipotent God and make them go away.
What about that do you NOT understand?

You didn't understand this part. I meant that those hardships didn't have to exist because God could do away with them. Just to give a frame of reference: It doesn't make sense to make you suffer to learn how to deal with starving to death when I am the one that made it possible, out of my own volition, for you to starve to death. It is redundant, since I could just make it so no one would stave to death. What would be point of learning how to deal with something that doesn't exist?

So what? People can suffer sometimes and other times they can experience happiness and comfort. There is no reason to think that humans have to be happy all the time.

Aha! I feel like we are getting there: Any omnibenevolent being would want everyone to experience the utmost well-being and happiness, which means experiencing it all the time if possible. That's what the utmost benevolence entails.

Suffering is a means to an end.

It does not MATTER what God COULD have done. Suffering IS necessary because that is how God created the world.

Do you understand that "God is omnipotent so God could achieve the same end in another way" is a moot point because that is not what God chose to do? Do you understand that an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do?

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

What is the point of this conversation? It does not MATTER what God could have done so it is an utter waste of time to talk about it. Moreover, whenever you say that God should have done something differently you are saying you know more than God.
.
“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 284

Why would someone that wants our utmost well-being make suffering necessary?

 

[Trailblazer]

Allow me to refresh your memory:

It is alright if you want to backpedal your way out of this. I just want to make sure I understand your current position: Do you mean God is not as benevolent as he could be and therefore that our well-being is not among his utmost priorities? Do you mean he is good but not really all that good to the point it wouldn't be accurate to say he is infinitely good?

If yes, there is nothing else to debate.
The problem of evil is an argument against a god concept that is quite specific.

God is 'maximally benevolent' which means God is as benevolent as it is possible to be.
Our well-being is among His utmost priorities, but God rules and maintains everything in existence so humans on earth are not the only concerns God has.

 

[Koldo]

God is 'maximally benevolent' which means God is as benevolent as it is possible to be.

Ok. And what is the difference between being maximally benevolent and omnibenevolent?

Our well-being is among His utmost priorities, but God rules and maintains everything in existence so humans on earth are not the only concerns God has.

Most certainly. But if our well-being is among his top priorities then why aren't we all happy right now?

 

[Trailblazer]

Let me try it this way: Why can we compare humans to humans even though humans are different among themselves?

Humans, other animals, plants and minerals are all part of God's Creation, but each of them is a different order of creation. We can compare a rock to another rock or a plant to another plant, or an animal to another animal, or a human to another human, because they are the same order of creation.

God is in a category all His own. God is the Creator who has fashioned the universe, a non-created cause of all existence. We cannot compare anything with God because God is one and alone, unlike anything else.

You cannot compare God to a man because God is the Creator and man is the creation.

Great. Here is the problem though: You have told me that no evidence could possibly convince you that God is not benevolent. What if we found evidence that God tortured someone to death?

You could never find that because you could never find God. All you have are humans who might say God did x, y, or z, but you could never prove it.

I am doing it this way so you get to tell me, in practice, the distinction between benevolence and malevolence. Not just conceptually as in a dictionary. So please, how would you figure out if Joe was malevolent?

You would have to know Joe's intentions, whether he had or showed a wish to do evil to Brian.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok. And what is the difference between being maximally benevolent and omnibenevolent?

Being maximally benevolent means being at the upper limit of benevolence, as benevolent as it is possible to be.

The definition of omnibenevolence is below:

omnibenevolent: (of a deity) possessing perfect or unlimited goodness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+does+omnibenevolent+mean

Most certainly. But if our well-being is among his top priorities then why aren't we all happy right now?

Because being happy all the time is not necessary or even beneficial for human well-being, and the sooner you figure that out the better off you will be.

 

[Trailblazer]

What does it mean to know better on this context? You can do A to get B. How can it be more efficient to do C to get P to get B? Or Z, Y, W...?

There is no more efficient way to achieve something than do it do it directly when you can achieve it instantly.

That is just another personal opinion which I can disregard because that has never been how God operates.
You never heard of the patience of Job? Patience is also one of God's attributes, and given humans are made in the image of God, Job reflected that attribute.

You didn't understand this part. I meant that those hardships didn't have to exist because God could do away with them. Just to give a frame of reference: It doesn't make sense to make you suffer to learn how to deal with starving to death when I am the one that made it possible, out of my own volition, for you to starve to death. It is redundant, since I could just make it so no one would stave to death. What would be point of learning how to deal with something that doesn't exist?

It is not God's responsibility to 'see to it' that humans do not starve to death, it is a job that God gave to humans to accomplish. God only does His own job, which is ruling and maintaining all of existence. God gave man dominion over the earth, so humans are responsible to take care of the earth and other humans.

Aha! I feel like we are getting there: Any omnibenevolent being would want everyone to experience the utmost well-being and happiness, which means experiencing it all the time if possible. That's what the utmost benevolence entails.

You do not know what an omnibenevolent being would want. No, that is not what God wants. God wants us to suffer so we can grow spiritually. What a boring life it would be to be happy all the time. You could not even know happiness unless there was sadness to compare it to,. So are we supposed to be happy when a loved one dies, or is God supposed to take over our minds so we will not have to grieve and feel sad? Or is God going to stop everyone from dying?

However, that good news is that we will be happy all the time if we make it to heaven by playing our cards right in this life. Heaven is a spiritual world so there is nothing to make us sad except our own thoughts, which go with us. Since it is this material world that is the source of all suffering it logically follows that there will be no more suffering in the spiritual world so we will be happy all the time if we acquired the spiritual qualities that we will need in heaven while living in this world.

“They that are the followers of the one true God shall, the moment they depart out of this life, experience such joy and gladness as would be impossible to describe…. “Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

If you have an imagination and logical abilities you can figure out what will happen to those who are not followers of the one true God.

Why would someone that wants our utmost well-being make suffering necessary?

Simple, because suffering is beneficial for our ultimate well-being.