A Benevolent God

[jomifl]

Having taken heed of some of the arguments in support of their benevolent god and Kromovacorum's posting on another thread, what are your suggestions for this benevolent god's mightiest works?
Here is mine:-

The boxing day tsunami

[jim360]

@Naomi I believe I've already answered that in this thread.

@Jomifl I'm not really trying to compromise reality with belief. I was initially trying to clarify the language being used since I think people are attacking ideas that are already known to be absurd, and that no serious theist accepts.

@Kroma. Well, that's a shame if I have become incoherent. It's ultimately for you to judge. I hope I won't be so incoherent in future.

@birdie. When I said I was arguing for inherent omniscience that was before I noticed the "choice" aspect -- which is just a little, well, "silly" and actually goes against what I am trying to set up. Which is, I suppose, a God which is falsifiable. On reflection I'd be for "totally omniscient" God -- where total means "knowing everything that can be known". Which is not contradictory at all.

[Kromovaracun]

"where total means "knowing everything that can be known". Which is not contradictory at all."

I'm afraid it is totally contradictory if you also want to maintain that God is morally good.

And, if you want to accept the Bible as a source (which you might not and at the current rate you may have to jettison), then that book also makes numerous references to knowledge of the future (i.e. that which cannot yet be known) - the entire book of Revelation comes in the form of a series of prophesies by the Apostle John about the future. This would imply that, according to the Bible, the future is knowable and is therefore probably known by God.

[jim360]

Well I was arguing on omniscience at the moment rather than omnibenevolence.

And finally, how many times do I have to say that I don't accept the Bible as a source and that I am trying to define that which I am opposed to?

[Kromovaracun]

No, I understand that. It's just that I'm still not clear what definition of God you're talking about, so I just used the god of the bible as a reference point. I only cite revelation because I think if you accept the God of the bible, then that involves a definition of omniscience far beyond 'that which can be known.'

And I also know you were talking about omniscience, but nobody has ever said that the idea of omniscience itself is contradictory. It's more that a being cannot possibly exist with it *and* omnibenevolence or omnipotence.

[jim360]

Well, fair enough. The whole debate is irritating me, although that could well be because my position is as much of a house of cards as any other theists and it's being brutally exposed. I'll need to think about it some more.

[naomi24]

Jim, //@Naomi I believe I've already answered that in this thread. //

No one asked the question until now. I don't see an answer.

[mibn2cweus]

Understanding the means and process by which knowledge is obtained and assimilated is essential to achieving the ability to distinguish it from that which one merely believes they know, an understanding which once acquired precludes the possibility of 'omniscience' by virtue of the prerequisite existence of that which is available and accessible to learning and knowledge through the process of perception of that which already exists. Existence is not a product of knowledge but rather the provider of that which can be known by something that has since acquired the means of perceiving existence.

Intentional, purposeful creation can not precede that which makes intentional, purposeful creativity possible, a complex highly evolved organism that has acquired the means and potential ability to do so, an entity that has first learned how to think . . . rationally.

[jim360]

See my psot at 23:01 Yesterday. Page 7.

[Khandro]

Kromo said; //Please explain why being in a minority means that someone is wrong.// It doesn't, but neither does it indicate that it is right. But to hear the missionary fervour and passionate desire to convert people who have varying ideas about what 'God' is, to atheism, one might think it was a highly compelling universally accept theory.
jomifl; I don't recall any link to S.Dali, but I wouldn't use him to prove anything! I do recall a beautiful cloud formation you sent in relation to my question about jet vapour trails in a fohn wind.
Re. your OP, God is not responsible for arranging individual tsunamis anymore than you are.

[jomifl]

Khandro,The Dali picture was 'woman at a window in Figueras' and depicted wave clouds over the Pyrenées. At the time you were not aware of wave clouds and I pointed out that they are quite obvious in when you looked around.
Glad to hear that you appreciate that god is no more omnipotent than me. Though you would be hard pressed to prove it.

[naomi24]

Jim, I read it. It says //I'm still wrestling somewhat between the feeling that I have to be right on this//

Doesn't sound terribly conclusive.

[jim360]

It's an inner struggle of sorts, yes. Not sure quite how to define it, though. I think it's a struggle between how to perceive those who do believe: wrong but reasonable, or wrong and not reasonable at all?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Why don't we start a new thread entitled "A Bevolent Atheist", Jim?

[jomifl]

V-E Perhaps 'a compassionate atheist' ?

[jim360]

Perhaps even "a compassionate guy who hijacked OP's thread"?

[Khandro]

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

[LazyGun]

@ Khandro - So true "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity."

The difference between a religious believer like Rowan Williams, and a reilgious believer like Fred Phelps springs immediately to mind.

[Old_Geezer]

God would benevolent enough to let you get on with it and learn self reliance and best practice. You are all in need of a little tough love.

[Kromovaracun]

"It doesn't, but neither does it indicate that it is right."

Agreed. So why, then, did you say to LG " Your self-assured patronage is amusing when considered in the light of the fact that atheists represent only 2.35% of humanity" when actually the number of people who agree with him has nothing to do with whether he is right or not.

"But to hear the missionary fervour and passionate desire to convert people who have varying ideas about what 'God' is, to atheism, one might think it was a highly compelling universally accept theory. "

Khandro, this is a debating site. Debate means that people disagree and discuss ideas that they care about. I'm sorry if that offends you.

(Disclaimer: I am not sorry if it offends you.)

[Kromovaracun]

"your OP, God is not responsible for arranging individual tsunamis anymore than you are"

Also agreed. God is not the creator of the earth or the architect of the natural processes that lead to tsunamis.