Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sowelu]

I take plenty of issue with anyone who says God has any intention or duty to make this world perfect and suffering-less for humans.  Omnibenevolence is IMO a silly concept.  Much more sensible (if kind of weird and still not that sensible) is the idea that any God who's active in our day-to-day life sees us more as...I dunno, semi-adopted wild animals.  You've got your house out in the woods, and most of the time the critters are just there, but maybe you hang up a hummingbird feeder, or throw out some peanuts for the squirrels.  Powerful, could do a lot if they wanted, but just don't think they have any reason to.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That would be fine with me, if it weren't for believers the world over insisting on their God's ultimate goodness, power, and relationship with humans. If God or his believers make an omnibenevolence claim, then that claim must be fufilled or dropped for said god to be consistant. If god is not consistant, then chances are that we shouldn't be trusting in it.

[Argembarger]

omnibenevolence /
man from dirt /
fuckin' theology /
how does it work?

[Siquo]

In this world, however, were people are born with crippling, ultimately fatal genetic diseases, where there are parasites that live in children's eyes and all sorts of stuff that seems designed to cause as much random, irreversable suffering as possible...

Perception. In my daughter's world, the absolute worst thing that can happen is not getting icecream when she wants it, and there are a lot of things out of her control (and in my control) that she would like to change. Eating vegetables, for instance, is a torture beyond measure. "If my daddy really loved me he wouldn't let me eat this shit". In your world, it's kids with parasites in their eyes. In God's world, who knows?

Yeah, the Job story strikes me as a perfect example of sadism.  Not the classic kind you think of... a more subtle, manipulative kind.  The kind thatan abusive husband uses, perhaps.

Your ideas of suffering need relativity. If I jumble the pieces of a puzzle to see if she can still do it, am I torturing the puzzle-maker in a subtle manipulative way?

Towards my daughter I feel omnibenevolence, as far as a human can feel such a thing. That doesn't mean doing what she wants. People who insist that God isn't omnibenevolent because there's suffering in the world, haven't grown up since they were two and a half. IMNSHO.

[Bauglir]

Except, here's the thing. You don't have omnipotence; that you don't do everything your child wants doesn't reflect poorly on you, because not only can you NOT do so, attempting it would ruin her expectations of how the world ought to work and essentially destroy her ability to be happy in the future. God totally can fulfill every human desire without ruining our ability to interact with the world happily; He could even define human desire to be such that we don't want to have things that might impact us negatively. If you have the power to relieve suffering, without any negative consequences, and doing so requires little to no effort on your part, and you actually created the circumstances that led to that suffering (as is the case with the Christian God, anyway, and most of the other omnipotent & omnibenevolent deities) then failure to do so does, in fact, constitute malevolence. The God as a parent analogy doesn't work because God is fundamentally different from parents in terms of what he can do, if He's defined as omnipotent.

An omnibenevolent deity is possible, provided He or She is not also defined as omnipotent simultaneously. You can't have both in a world with suffering.

[Andir]

An omnibenevolent deity is possible, provided He or She is not also defined as omnipotent simultaneously. You can't have both in a world with suffering.

Such a being would care for dirt as much as it cared for Bob over there.  Omnibenevolence is a pretty sad life, especially with us tossing all those electrons around.

[Realmfighter]

You guys keep arguing about how a Omnipotent god must be a dick, as if that is the only kind of god there is.

[Sowelu]

You can only take omnipotence so far.  Christian theology already addresses free will; He chooses to forego his omnipotence in a wide area where our free will is concerned out of choice, probably because it's better for us (more benevolent).

I don't think you can argue "God can just change the rules to make anything possible so that we're always happy".  For one thing, you wind up a logical fallacy like "can God make a rock heavier than he can lift".  But also...well, hell, who's to say that allowing suffering isn't benevolent?  I sure as hell think it is.  That's why I'm not hopped up on ten thousand illicit substances all the time.  Besides, a lot of us are DF players, we know that doing things the hard way makes us happier.

"But only for trivial things; banishing death and disease wouldn't make the world a worse place!" -- how do YOU know?

[Leafsnail]

Perception. In my daughter's world, the absolute worst thing that can happen is not getting icecream when she wants it, and there are a lot of things out of her control (and in my control) that she would like to change. Eating vegetables, for instance, is a torture beyond measure. "If my daddy really loved me he wouldn't let me eat this shit". In your world, it's kids with parasites in their eyes. In God's world, who knows?

It's not remotely equivalent.  Your daughter has a chance to learn from the experience, and may be taught something.  Crucially, she carries on living afterwards, so she at least has an opportuiny to make benefit from it.

On the other hand, what is God trying to teach someone with Cystic Fibrosis?  Don't be born in a body with a serious, uncurable, unavoidable and ultimately fatal genetic disorder?  There's nothing that can possibly be learnt from it, since the person almost always ends up dead at a young age.

e puzzle-maker in a subtle manipulative way?

Towards my daughter I feel omnibenevolence, as far as a human can feel such a thing. That doesn't mean doing what she wants. People who insist that God isn't omnibenevolent because there's suffering in the world, haven't grown up since they were two and a half. IMNSHO.

Hey, so you do make cheap insults.  Good to know.

Anyway, there is a real, quantitive difference between what you describe and what God did to Lot.  What would be more equivalent is beating your daughter every night and still teaching her that "daddy loves you".

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you have the power to prevent suffering, lose nothing by doing so, and choose not to act, then you are evil. I'm sorry, but there's no way around it. People like to live, and they don't like to be in pain (generally). I know that banishing disease would make the world a better place, because the disease we already banished ourselves (Smallpox) caused untold suffering that is now gone. Allowing suffering is simply not a good thing.

Now, I don't have a problem with any of this because I don't believe any gods exist, benevolent or otherwise, but arguing that untold suffering is a good thing is somthing I simply cannot leave alone. You don't learn from adversity when it destroys you, which our world's adversity has a tendincy to do.

[Realmfighter]

What if the suffering was a test to see who is a Good Person, helping others in there suffering, and who is a Bad Person, taking advantage of others pain.

[Leafsnail]

What if the suffering was a test to see who is a Good Person, helping others in there suffering, and who is a Bad Person, taking advantage of others pain.

Yeah, something like Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is a brilliant way to tell if people are good or bad.

[Realmfighter]

Seeing how the parent deal with the tragedy.

[Leafsnail]

What about the child, firstly.

Secondly, can I use that as justification for child murder?

[Realmfighter]

I think it's widely believed that all babies go to heaven, as they have not even begun to sin.

You can try.