[Shmeggley]

God is of course omnipotent, omnibenevolent, & omniscient. The question, however, is illogical & solipsistic. 'Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?' is like saying that someone is a married bachelor. The question, like the phrase, is a contradiction in terms, & therefore has no connotation in English (or any other language).

Alright, we'll ignore the question since you've admitted it is beyond your ability to grasp.

If God is omnibenevolent, which loosely means "Good guy all around ", then why has He commited such foul acts in the Bible? I'll give you one example: the flood. He actually attempted to kill everyone on Earth (of course there is no evidence for this Flood ever happening, but we'll ignore that part as well for now) and He had no qualms about doing it.

What was the point of this? God got upset that the beings he created were doing evil things (keep in mind, he programmed them to do evil things in the first place via "free will") and wanted to kill them all. That's the bottom line. No "benevolent" ruler murders his own subjects.

"Yahweh decides to flood the earth because of the depth of the sinful state of mankind."

Exodus 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.


Your God would make a lot more sense if you stopped calling him benevolent, because he's clearly not. He's actually more malevolent than most deities.

All the murder and mayhem is for a good cause, don'cha know. It all works out for the best at the end of time. 

I mean, when you have guys like William Lane Craig spinning the slaughter of the Amalekites (sp?) down to the last child as being ultimately to their benefit as the innocent would immediately go up to heaven, how do you even argue against that? Just getting into an argument with someone who can take that position with a straight face is insanity. Atheism vs. religion? Maybe the only the only reasonable response to the question is "no thanks".

[Ghost of V]

Re: God being an uncool Dude in the Bible by flooding the place, & doing other things that appear very nasty to people & things, I don't claim to understand the justice of of God @ all times. Why the Flood? Well, the Torah offers an answer. Whether you accept that answer is up to you. I'm not saying you're not entitled to question God. You are. But remember that some questions have been crossing the eyes of learned Rabbis much smarter than me for a couple thousand yrs now. I might have some answers. I might not, but can get you in the right direction. But all too often, I shall be as mystified as you.

You're ignoring the question. Probably because you're trolling, but whatever. I'll bite.

If God is good (benevolent), does it make sense that a benevolent God would kill everyone on Earth? Yes or no.

Since you seem to have a hard time comprehending the word; the meaning of benevolent is:
"well meaning and kindly."

I mean, when you have guys like William Lane Craig spinning the slaughter of the Amalekites (sp?) down to the last child as being ultimately to their benefit as the innocent would immediately go up to heaven, how do you even argue against that? Just getting into an argument with someone who can take that position with a straight face is insanity. Atheism vs. religion? Maybe the only the only reasonable response to the question is "no thanks".

Maybe Man's collective definition of "benevolent" was different back then? We have evolved mentally since the times of the Bible, after all.

Which makes it even more amazing that people still intellectually cling to the Bible as a source of reliable wisdom. Does that mean that these people have not evolved mentally like the rest of us? Perhaps we can ask one of these very people: Yaakov, are you mentally handicapped?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

A goat w/ a dolphin's head... That is a thought. Again, you are mischaracterising the argument. The argument isn't designed to give us interesting wildlife or men w/ unique sexual organs. Although along those lines, there are other philosophical arguments that explain why God DIDN'T create say, a goat w/ a dolphin's head. But that aside, goat's w/ dolphin's heads are neither greater nor lesser than anything else. God is the Greatest Being that can be conceived. If such a being does not exist, than there is one greater; namely, one that exists. There is nothing intrinsically great about a goat w/ a dolphin's head. In fact, from a standpoint of biology, that would likely be disastrous. I could continue, but my point is clear.

[fappenhosen]

but my point is clear.

Incorrect, but at least we're thinking about greatness.

Imagine the greatest TV set. It has 2160HD and 8 HDMI ports. Poof it exists.
Imagine the greatest NFL player. He can throw balls to Saturn. Poof he exists.
etc etc etc

[Ghost of V]

A goat w/ a dolphin's head... That is a thought. Again, you are mischaracterising the argument. The argument isn't designed to give us interesting wildlife or men w/ unique sexual organs. Although along those lines, there are other philosophical arguments that explain why God DIDN'T create say, a goat w/ a dolphin's head. But that aside, goat's w/ dolphin's heads are neither greater nor lesser than anything else. God is the Greatest Being that can be conceived. If such a being does not exist, than there is one greater; namely, one that exists. There is nothing intrinsically great about a goat w/ a dolphin's head. In fact, from a standpoint of biology, that would likely be disastrous. I could continue, but my point is clear.

Are you ever going to answer a question with a real response? All I see here is circular logic. Surely your "2 BAs" prove that you're capable of more than that.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Point 1, Vaux, your an asshole. That being said, w/ 3 degrees, I expect I'm better educated or equally as educated as you are. Point 2. State sponsored atheism, since the French Revolution, has managed to kill how many people? In the USSR, 30 million. In PR China, 40 million. In the DPRK, about 30% of the population in the '90's. In Cambodia, about 25% of population in 4 yrs. Shall I continue? Note that in all these nations, the first people executed were the clergy. Point 3. Aside from Fundamentalist types, mostly Christian types, the rest of us do not advocate violence in the name of the Bible.

[Ghost of V]

Point 1, Vaux, your an asshole. That being said, w/ 3 degrees, I expect I'm better educated or equally as educated as you are. Point 2. State sponsored atheism, since the French Revolution, has managed to kill how many people? In the USSR, 30 million. In PR China, 40 million. In the DPRK, about 30% of the population in the '90's. In Cambodia, about 25% of population in 4 yrs. Shall I continue? Note that in all these nations, the first people executed were the clergy. Point 3. Aside from Fundamentalist types, mostly Christian types, the rest of us do not advocate violence in the name of the Bible.

I'm sorry, what?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

There is nothing uniquely great about NFL players or television sets, & there are plenty of arguments that outweigh an Anselmian one for their presence. Philosophy is not the art of wishful thinking. It is the understanding of that which makes logical sense.

[Ghost of V]

Yaakov, during your education did you ever learn about the Crusades?

Violence is not based on religion. Violence is a trope that fits every facet of humanity. It has nothing to do with religions or non-religions. Those are merely excuses to cause violence, like a number of other things.

We can pull examples from both sides of the spectrum, it matters not.

You're swimming in fallacies tonight, aren't you?

[DuckDodgers]

A thought does not prove the existence of anything.  You should abandon that piss poor ontological argument.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Of course I learned about the Crusades. We Jews have no love lost for Muslim or Christian. They've both been assholes to us. Christians are currently a bit nicer, I suppose. But atheists have had by far the worst track record in the history of the world for murder & mayhem. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. The Kims. Just a few of how many? As far as the ontological argument being 'piss poor', prove it wrong. Then I shall abandon it. There are other, inductive, arguments for God's existence, but Anselm is usually enough. Well, I have to log off now. I'll see you all in about 3 hrs.

[Snupes]

Of course I learned about the Crusades. We Jews have no love lost for Muslim or Christian. They've both been assholes to us. Christians are currently a bit nicer, I suppose. But atheists have had by far the worst track record in the history of the world for murder & mayhem. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. The Kims. Just a few of how many? As far as the ontological argument being 'piss poor', prove it wrong. Then I shall abandon it. There are other, inductive, arguments for God's existence, but Anselm is usually enough. Well, I have to log off now. I'll see you all in about 3 hrs.

Are you kidding me? *Because* they were atheist? That's absolutely ridiculous. If "is an atheist and killed people" equals "killed people in the name of atheism", then oh boy I can guarantee you the vast majority of murderers in the world were religious. I thought you were better than that ridiculous "argument".

[DuckDodgers]

Ontological refutation #1 http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html
#2 http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Mode/ModeDeLo.htm
That argument basically boils down to "God exists because I believe he exists."  You cannot prove a single thing by "imagining it possible to exist".  It was refuted long ago, but that refutation has fallen on the deaf ears of the fools who would believe their mind can will into existence anything they want.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, Snupes, I'll agree, most nations that war w/ each other have religions to which the govts & citizens adhere, but most wars are NOT about religion, as history proves, despite the stupid & untrue statement people (usually Americans) make about 'more wars being fought in the name of religion, etc'. On the other hand, state sponsored atheism usually tortures & kills clergy as 1 of its 1st acts. Now, I won't deny, some wars have been religious. The Crusades, the 30 Years War, the French Wars of Religion. Some wars have had a religious element. The Arab conquests. The wars of the 'Old Testament' were wars of territorial acquisition in which the Israelite side felt justified by God. Again, not strictly religious, but w/ a religious element. When America goes to Iraq, we do it singing 'God bless America'. Not much different. Duck, again, the rhetorical question: w/ a loaded & cocked pistol to your head, is your continued existence better than your non-existence? What's better, a live Duck or a dead Duck?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I ask again, what is a being that is greater, one that can be conceived but doesn't exist, or one that does? I read the attempts @ rejecting the argument in college. I found them silly then, & find them silly now.

[Ghost of V]

It just sounds like your subtlely threatening people now.

[Rushy]

I wouldn't say that God wants bad things to happen. He knows they will, but not because he himself willed it to be so. Observe the following analogy (& no, it is NOT a perfect one): a man & a woman have a child. They raise him w/ every financial & moral advantage. He is never in want. He gets an excellent education, is loved by parents, siblings, & friends. All is going well for this boy. Yet in his teens he begins to misbehave. @ 1st, his pranks are harmless, even funny. But as he progresses to adulthood, they turn downright dangerous & even criminal. His father observes this in anguish. His other children turn into fine young men & women, good citizens all. But the one continues his self-destructive ways & means. His sorrowing parents begin to see that the end for their son will be the dark of a felon's cell, or, God forbid, a hangman's noose. Tell me. Even if they foresee this, are they to blame? I realise the analogy isn't perfect. But God creates us free. The fact that he knows what we will do (cont)

This analogy doesn't match up because parents aren't omnipotent or omniscient. A better analogy would be you have a gun and you fire the gun at a person. You are later arrested for murder. You claim that you didn't kill the person, the bullet did. A defense that isn't going to go over very well in court.

This is because you already know what a gun is going to do when you fire it at a someone. No decision whatsoever is left to the gun as it is incapable of making any. An omnipotent/omniscient God creating humans is pulling the trigger on a gun.

[DuckDodgers]

What is better, multiple perfect beings or just one?  I just proved polytheism using your ontological argument.  Because surely 2 is greater than 1, and 3 greater than 2, and so on.  Therefore, there is no God, but rather a council of gods.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

And no, VAUX, I am not threatening Duck. I noticed AFTER posting the message the pun. It was not intentional. The statement was entirely rhetorical. If I ever tried to shoot a firearm, I'd probably blow my own dick off.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Actually, that is an interesting question, Duck, & one we considered. It ended up a no go. Premise 1 by Person A: I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived & exists. Premise 2 by Person B: I can conceive of a Being equally as great as your Being, also existing. Premise 3, Person A: My Being is always greater than yours. No matter how great yours is, mine is just that much greater, & exists. Ergo, Person A's Being is a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived & exists. 2 perfections are not possible in 1 universe. 1 will always out-perfect the other.