In honor of Mormonism

[dastardly stem]

To Mormonism? yes. To Christianity as most in our world/environment describe Christianity? I don't think so.

I am not concerned about Mormonism but Christianity. And what the majority believes because they have been taught poorly by bad teachers does not concern me. Hell is a late invention. There is no hell as such. Universal salvation is probably the ancient orthodox future of all humankind.

Yeah my idea here is a n response to Christianity as presented by current believers as they express. I don’t see how saying hell is a late invention or that it’s not really about eternal torment or something does much to my explanation. As it is Christian thought still promotes, in the end, misery and evil.

But yes universal salvation would be best. Then we don’t have to believe stupid ideas like Christianity at all.

[Kishkumen]

Yeah my idea here is a n response to Christianity as presented by current believers as they express. I don’t see how saying hell is a late invention or that it’s not really about eternal torment or something does much to my explanation. As it is Christian thought still promotes, in the end, misery and evil.

But yes universal salvation would be best. Then we don’t have to believe stupid ideas like Christianity at all.

Stupid ideas? Ugh. Pretty coarse and ignorant rhetoric, stem. Very disappointing. Follow the example of Bill Reel and RFM by steel-manning your opponents.

[dastardly stem]

Yeah my idea here is a n response to Christianity as presented by current believers as they express. I don’t see how saying hell is a late invention or that it’s not really about eternal torment or something does much to my explanation. As it is Christian thought still promotes, in the end, misery and evil.

But yes universal salvation would be best. Then we don’t have to believe stupid ideas like Christianity at all.

Stupid ideas? Ugh. Pretty coarse and ignorant rhetoric, stem. Very disappointing. Follow the example of Bill Reel and RFM by steel-manning your opponents.

I did steel man. Each of the premises under consideration are precisely the steel-manned position of those arguing for Christianity. I can't help that the ideas that amount to christianity aren't good ones.

[Kishkumen]

You’re being willfully obtuse.

[huckelberry]

You’re being willfully obtuse.

I find myself with a mixed reaction. There are some folks whose thoughts may be as awful as Stems monster god. I mostly hear fragments of speculations Christians have made wired together to make a bloodless Frankenstein.

If God thinks of evil he is guilty of being evil(?). I cannot buy into that idea.

[malkie]

You’re being willfully obtuse.

I find myself with a mixed reaction. There are some folks whose thoughts may be as awful as Stems monster god. I mostly hear fragments of speculations Christians have made wired together to make a bloodless Frankenstein.

If God thinks of evil he is guilty of being evil(?). I cannot buy into that idea.

As a god thinketh, so is he?

[dastardly stem]

You’re being willfully obtuse.

I find myself with a mixed reaction. There are some folks whose thoughts may be as awful as Stems monster god. I mostly hear fragments of speculations Christians have made wired together to make a bloodless Frankenstein.

If God thinks of evil he is guilty of being evil(?). I cannot buy into that idea.

I'm not trying to be mean, huckelberry. I'm just very concerned about the entailments of these beliefs and what it means.

Let's consider it more. If God existed before anything else, then all that became, if he knows all and is all powerful, is a result of what He planned, or imagined. Along with the explanation I started with, we can say He had to have planned for a Satan, for instance. But the Satan couldn't have been the most evil of all things if God did not first imagine there to be a most evil of all things. It must be that God imagined the evil that was satan before Satan ever was. And everything that is Satan can only be if God first imagined that's what he would be. But that goes for all evil. God first imagined the things that would transpired and then did the only thing that could possibly have brought about those evil things--He created. Remember we're talking about a character (God) who didn't know anyone before creating. He imagined the characters that would come to be. All evil then is caused by God. That is the entailment. If not, how would it not be so?

But, I'd say if we think more on the concept of God and us...we can try and reason to a decent God. Believers tell me God "allows" evil to accomplish His designs (I don't know how they know that but let's go with it). Well, if God is all-benevolent that just suggests evil, or what we call evil, is necessary on God's view to bring about the good. We must note, He's the author of all and the only necessary one. What would result is anything we call evil is not evil...it's an "all things considered good". The Holocaust happened. Some might say that's evidence there is no God. But if the Holocaust somehow brought about the greater good (whatever that frequent phrase means) then it must be that it was a necessary part of God's plan. If the Holocaust didn't bring about the greater good, and God allowed it to happen, then God is defying His own nature of all-benevolence (thus, my OP).

But this is just that nasty problem of evil, put another way.

P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

P2. There is evil in the world.

C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

If God is all powerful, knowing, and benevolent, it could be that God imagined creating thingies without evil. He could have created us and sent us to a world, with some knowledge that He exists, for starters. He could have clearly told us that its best to be good. He could have created without creating Satan, or any other followers of Satan. He could have not created anyone whom he later decides to torture or destroy. But that's what He didn't do. And He didn't, apparently, for His own reasons. As an outsider it appears His reasons are simply an end design for evil, as the OP lays out. But for those who believe He creates a space wherein at least a few will find respice. And that defines the good.

It appears on a believing perspective God planned things like the Holocaust not because he wanted destruction, pain, suffering, evil, but because He wanted the result of those, what we call, evils in order that some of his people will be saved. This draws us back to the time before creating. If God is all benevolent then His imagining the evil that is Satan was a necessity to bring about His plan of saving some from His imagined destruction. Or, put another way, His imagining the tormented people in hell was nothing more than an "all things considered good". He imagined torturing people whom He wouldn't love because that was a necessary part of His plan--or however you want to word that.

From my perspective, God is not good, on all the conditions under consideration. I would be interested in someone pointing out how it can be reasoned that God is good.

[Rivendale]

I find myself with a mixed reaction. There are some folks whose thoughts may be as awful as Stems monster god. I mostly hear fragments of speculations Christians have made wired together to make a bloodless Frankenstein.

If God thinks of evil he is guilty of being evil(?). I cannot buy into that idea.

I'm not trying to be mean, huckelberry. I'm just very concerned about the entailments of these beliefs and what it means.

Let's consider it more. If God existed before anything else, then all that became, if he knows all and is all powerful, is a result of what He planned, or imagined. Along with the explanation I started with, we can say He had to have planned for a Satan, for instance. But the Satan couldn't have been the most evil of all things if God did not first imagine there to be a most evil of all things. It must be that God imagined the evil that was satan before Satan ever was. And everything that is Satan can only be if God first imagined that's what he would be. But that goes for all evil. God first imagined the things that would transpired and then did the only thing that could possibly have brought about those evil things--He created. Remember we're talking about a character (God) who didn't know anyone before creating. He imagined the characters that would come to be. All evil then is caused by God. That is the entailment. If not, how would it not be so?

But, I'd say if we think more on the concept of God and us...we can try and reason to a decent God. Believers tell me God "allows" evil to accomplish His designs (I don't know how they know that but let's go with it). Well, if God is all-benevolent that just suggests evil, or what we call evil, is necessary on God's view to bring about the good. We must note, He's the author of all and the only necessary one. What would result is anything we call evil is not evil...it's an "all things considered good". The Holocaust happened. Some might say that's evidence there is no God. But if the Holocaust somehow brought about the greater good (whatever that frequent phrase means) then it must be that it was a necessary part of God's plan. If the Holocaust didn't bring about the greater good, and God allowed it to happen, then God is defying His own nature of all-benevolence (thus, my OP).

But this is just that nasty problem of evil, put another way.

P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

P2. There is evil in the world.

C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

If God is all powerful, knowing, and benevolent, it could be that God imagined creating thingies without evil. He could have created us and sent us to a world, with some knowledge that He exists, for starters. He could have clearly told us that its best to be good. He could have created without creating Satan, or any other followers of Satan. He could have not created anyone whom he later decides to torture or destroy. But that's what He didn't do. And He didn't, apparently, for His own reasons. As an outsider it appears His reasons are simply an end design for evil, as the OP lays out. But for those who believe He creates a space wherein at least a few will find respice. And that defines the good.

It appears on a believing perspective God planned things like the Holocaust not because he wanted destruction, pain, suffering, evil, but because He wanted the result of those, what we call, evils in order that some of his people will be saved. This draws us back to the time before creating. If God is all benevolent then His imagining the evil that is Satan was a necessity to bring about His plan of saving some from His imagined destruction. Or, put another way, His imagining the tormented people in hell was nothing more than an "all things considered good". He imagined torturing people whom He wouldn't love because that was a necessary part of His plan--or however you want to word that.

From my perspective, God is not good, on all the conditions under consideration. I would be interested in someone pointing out how it can be reasoned that God is good.

Absolutely agree. If evil is allowed for the greater good it must happen. For example, inoculations of children allow temporary harm for the greater good. That would mean every atrocity is allowed for some greater good.

[huckelberry]

....... P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

P2. There is evil in the world.

C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

Hi Stem,
I feel pretty certain that evil is quite real and see no point in trying to balance every evil with some sort of good.
I agree god as pictured in your quote above does not exist.

That picture was put together by people thinking with a small bubble universe with the earth as the center. It was a few thousand years old and consisted of ideas flowing from the mind of god.

[Kishkumen]

When I read stem's descriptions of the Deity, I feel like we are so far off from hitting the mark of what such an entity would be like. Again, as I said elsewhere, we are playing a very small sandbox trying to grapple with an order of existence that is beyond our comprehension. As a result, our attempts to wrestle with these concepts in our language fall woefully short. It is easy for me to say, "Yeah, stem, I don't like that idea of God either," and that would be accurate, but it would not be the same as saying, "There is no God because what you said sounded really bad."

After all, what does stem know of the nature of God? Here on this board we have very little capacity to wrestle with these issues. I would rely on the philosophers and scientists with some experience at grappling with higher orders of reality and more abstract thought. "God knew evil would happen so he is responsible for it in some sense, and, ergo, I cannot believe in that God" is lightyears from where we need to be.

I can agree with stem in thinking that most people's concept of God can't be anywhere near correct or worthy of investing any belief in. Beyond that I think I go in a much different direction from stem.