Infinitely Powerful

[Tricky]

No kidding, Sherlock! That is exactly what I was trying to say.

That's what you were trying to say? I guess I just expected it to be pertinent.

It was you who started with the proposition that God was sending the suffering, not merely allowing it. Pointing out where your proposition leads is not begging the question.

I'm following up on the idea of omnipotence. If God is the source of everything, then God sends the suffering/evil. This is why I find the idea of a omnipotent yet benevolent god to be a contradiction. That the two concepts are mutually contradicting is the "problem of evil' in a nutshell.

However, the problem of evil only works if you can show that benevolence must be inconsistent with noninterference.

What, benevolent but never does anything? How many people do you think have that concept of God? Yeah, a benevolent god who only wishes people would be good is not a contradiction.

I'm not talking about non-interference in un-evidenced, undefined other dimensions. I'm talking about in the universe we live in. When we talk about evil, we are almost always talking about evil in this life. Depending on your definitions, it may be impossible to do evil in heaven, and perhaps even in hell.

There's no "of course" about that. It is very easy to have a rough idea of what a universe with much less suffering would be like. It is much more difficult, and possibly infeasible, to fully trace out the course of such a universe to see if there are hidden problems.

Again, we get into definitions. What does "omnipotent" mean? I don't believe is is a concept that can be coherently defined.

"Evil" hasn't been redefined. Rather, it was pointed out by me that the argument from evil was basically an argument from suffering. The emphasis is on bad stuff happening, not necessarily if the cause of the bad stuff has a moral component.

Well, there are two or more definitions floating about. I've tried to stick to your "suffering" definition when discussing it with you, but to pgwenthold, it may mean something else. Personally, I feel like the most useful definition of evil is "very bad", but most theists use it in some connection with God's wishes. I agree that we need to come to a consensus on what we mean by "evil" if we are going to discuss "the problem of evil".

 

[Tricky]

Not if suffering were somehow for the greater good, for example if it allowed free will.

I see no reason why an omnipotent God could not have free will without suffering. A situation where no choice you made led to any suffering (like picking between two desserts).

Now if you want to argue that suffering is an essential part of free will, that is a topic for another thread.

 

[Bri]

Not necessarily. They might be simply mistaken about what is right or wrong according to God's plan. They might be acting against it and not knowing it. Would you not agree that some people do things that you consider very immoral in the name of their God?

It is certainly possible that someone could do something that they felt was right but that someone else felt was wrong.

It has to do with the problem of evil because we mere mortals cannot determine what God considers evil.

How do you know that God considers it evil to do what you feel is right but someone else feels is wrong?

Not only do Christians and Muslims disagree, but Christians disagree with other Christians. If one is correct but the other is not, how do you tell?

Maybe God doesn't care about those things that are questionable and only cares that you do what you know to be right. I tend to agree that there is some inconsistency with those religions that believe that you're damned if you don't believe as they do, but there are plenty of religions that don't believe that. It is possible that God doesn't care if everyone believes exactly the same thing as long as everyone behaves in a basically moral way.

It gets back to my question of how you define evil. I call it "acting against the will of God". It is "suffering" according to jjramsey. What do you think evil is?

Like I said, evil/good may be a continuum. Evil is then the lack of good. Evil might also be not doing what you know in your heart to be right (or doing what you know in your heart to be wrong).

LOL. So atheists get their morality from God, like it or not? If so then the Church is not a source of morality. Are you sure you want to argue that point?

If God created atheists with morals, then of course God is the source of their morality whether they like it or not. Many theists believe that atheists can act morally, and many believe that God rather than the Church is the source of morality.

So you agree that morality is totally unrelated to God.

No, it's not unrelated if God imparts human beings with a sense of morality and if God wants us to use that sense to choose right over wrong.

That's kind of begging the question, isn't it? What it distilled down to is "If you believe in that everything about us comes from God, then you believe that morality comes from God." True, but not particularly useful.

I'm sorry, but I wasn't begging the question. I was simply answering your question about whether God might be the source of morality. I personally don't see what it has to do with the Problem of Evil either way as long as we humans know the difference between right and wrong, regardless of the source of that knowledge.

But they do not agree about the instructions in the Bible. What I find is that people tend to shape their interpretation of the Bible based on their morality, rather than the reverse.

That I cannot argue with. My point is that we cannot prove the Problem of Evil based on an argument that we don't know right from wrong. We do know right from wrong.

Very much so. Why would anyone assume that their interpretation of right/wrong was the same as God's?

Presumably because God is the one who imparted us with the knowledge of right and wrong.

You would think that if God were providing moral principles, then He'd have a little more consistency in them.

I find moral principles to be remarkably consistent. Even atheists tend to have similar ethical values as theists on most issues. Perhaps the "grey" areas simply aren't as important to God.

It has to do with the problem of evil because we do not know what evil is. If God is sending that info, then there seems to be a rather severe communication problem.

We know the difference between right and wrong. Perhaps that's all we need to know.

-Bri

 

[jjramsey]

That's what you were trying to say? I guess I just expected it to be pertinent.

It's pertinent for pointing out what the argument from evil is trying to prove.

What, benevolent but never does anything? How many people do you think have that concept of God?

That's why I included Heaven and Hell in the mix. A God who for the most part does not interfere much in this life but sets things right in the next is commonplace in Christian theism.

Again, we get into definitions. What does "omnipotent" mean? I don't believe is is a concept that can be coherently defined.

Bri mentioned a coherent definition earlier.

 

[Bri]

I see no reason why an omnipotent God could not have free will without suffering. A situation where no choice you made led to any suffering (like picking between two desserts).

Now if you want to argue that suffering is an essential part of free will, that is a topic for another thread.

Some would argue that choosing between two positive outcomes doesn't allow free will because the agent doesn't really care one way or the other. But for the purposes of this discussion, what I meant by free will was the freedom to choose right instead of wrong. My apologies. I should have stated it that way the first time.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

It is certainly possible that someone could do something that they felt was right but that someone else felt was wrong.

That is obvious. But which one is right? Who decides? God? If God decides you were wrong, then are you at fault for not knowing you were wrong?

How do you know that God considers it evil to do what you feel is right but someone else feels is wrong?

Me? I'm an atheist. I'm proposing a hypothetical situation if God did exist. Do you believe in a God that doesn't care what you do as long as you feel that it is right? I would find that concept of God to be illogical.

Maybe God doesn't care about those things that are questionable and only cares that you do what you know to be right. I tend to agree that there is some inconsistency with those religions that believe that you're damned if you don't believe as they do, but there are plenty of religions that don't believe that. It is possible that God doesn't care if everyone believes exactly the same thing as long as everyone behaves in a basically moral way.

Well, among theists, I prefer your type. You're non-judgmental. But if all God cares about is your morality, that pretty much trashes the idea that Jesus died for our sins, because it would imply that works were more important than faith. I find such a concept of God much preferable to the one who only wants you to pledge a loyalty oath to His son.

Like I said, evil/good may be a continuum.

I believe in shades of morality too. I will argue that some lies are worse than others (and some are even noble). But if you propose a continuum, that still doesn't define what is at the end of the continuum. Is it "no suffering" or "absolute concordance with God" that is at the good end of the continuum?

Evil is then the lack of good. Evil might also be not doing what you know in your heart to be right (or doing what you know in your heart to be wrong).

This gets into the "sins of commission" versus the "sins of omission" and I agree that morality can be either. But this "knowing in your heart" stuff is what I have a problem with. For example, if one person "knows in their heart" that the death penalty is wrong, but the other person "knows in their heart" that the death penalty is right, well they can't both be correct can they?

If God created atheists with morals, then of course God is the source of their morality whether they like it or not.

And if there is no God, then God is not the source of Christians' morals, whether they like it or not. "If" scenarios can go either way.

So if an atheist "knows in his heart" that there is no God, does that make him correct? You see, that is the problem of arguing from faith. You are answering the "if" question the way you like, even though you really don't know for sure.

Many theists believe that atheists can act morally, and many believe that God rather than the Church is the source of morality.

Yep, they have all sorts of beliefs. I know from personal experience that many other theists believe that atheism is, by definition, immoral. So here is another case with mutually contradicting beliefs by theists. How can you tell which one is right? And if you can't tell which one is right, how do you know there even is a right answer?

No, it's not unrelated if God imparts human beings with a sense of morality and if God wants us to use that sense to choose right over wrong.

Again, you are begging the question. If your concept of God is correct, then your concept of God is correct. You may believe that God imparts human beings with a sense of morality, but it is pure faith. There is no evidence. It could just as well be that morality is a socially adaptive trait that evolved because it is important in creatures that live in large communities. It may have nothing whatsoever to do with God. Since we see versions of morality in other social (but non-religious) animals, this explanation makes a great deal more sense to me.

I'm sorry, but I wasn't begging the question. I was simply answering your question about whether God might be the source of morality. I personally don't see what it has to do with the Problem of Evil either way as long as we humans know the difference between right and wrong, regardless of the source of that knowledge.

The problem is that what we call "right and wrong" do not apply to God, at least not the way God is described by the Bible. If we did some of the things He did, we would be called very very evil. So how does God get away doing things we as humans would be shunned for? That is the problem of evil. How can morality come from God if God himself does not obey that morality?

(Note to jjramsey: I'm talking about the Christian concept of God right now, not the general, non-denominational concept of God.)

That I cannot argue with. My point is that we cannot prove the Problem of Evil based on an argument that we don't know right from wrong. We do know right from wrong.

Actually, we don't. If we did, we would all agree on what is right and wrong. Each of us relates the concept of right and wrong to their own moral code. While there is some general agreement about some of the more fundamental ideas of right and wrong, it is certainly not universal. This does not mean that we should behave amorally. We each have a code and we strongly defend that code, atheists and theists alike. But the codes are not the same among atheists or among theists.

Here's an example. A person decides, at some point in his life, to become a vegetarian because he suddenly "knows in his heart" that eating other animals is wrong. Yet, he happily ate meat for the first part of his life because he "knew in his heart" it was okay to eat meat. Was his heart right at one time and wrong at another? Or did he simply have a change in his moral code?

Here's another example on a more personal note:
When I was young and "idealistic", I made a vow that I would tell the truth as I saw it, and damn the torpedos. So I did. I hurt a lot of people's feelings and in many cases, it really didn't do any good. As I became older, I came to believe that it is often more important not to hurt people than to speak the truth when it will do no good. My moral code changed. Did I become more evil or less?

Presumably because God is the one who imparted us with the knowledge of right and wrong.

LOL. I don't make that presumption. And from what I observe, it is often impossible to tell what is right and what is wrong. I have morals and I act according to them. I do not pretend that there is something divine that guides my morality.

I find moral principles to be remarkably consistent. Even atheists tend to have similar ethical values as theists on most issues. Perhaps the "grey" areas simply aren't as important to God.

Depends on who you ask. Some believe a stupid little thing like choosing to call your God Allah rather than Jehovah will keep you out of heaven, regardless of your morality.

And I also disagree that moral principles are remarkably constant. Mass murder, yeah we pretty much agree (although a few in America think it is okay, even wise to nuke Islamic countries). But things like adultry? Business practices? Public nudity? The death penalty? Abortion? Teaching evolution? Homosexuality? You will find a whole spectrum of moral beliefs.

We know the difference between right and wrong. Perhaps that's all we need to know.

We don't "know" the difference between right and wrong. We belive. I've just given you a few examples of things where lots of people believe in different definitions of right and wrong. You want to tackle any of those issues? I'll bet you'll find lots of theists who strongly disagree.

But don't feel bad. Atheists disagree on a number of those things too.

 

[Tricky]

It's pertinent for pointing out what the argument from evil is trying to prove.

The "argument from evil" is trying to prove that a benevolent, omnipotent god is a contradiction, and it does so, as long as you accept the common definitions of benevolent and omnipotent.

That's why I included Heaven and Hell in the mix. A God who for the most part does not interfere much in this life but sets things right in the next is commonplace in Christian theism.

Really? I don't know a single Christian who doesn't pray. A prayer is either a request for God's intervention or a thanks for His previous intervention. Some even pray that they, or their loved ones will go to heaven.

As for hell, I consider that eternal punishment for a temporal wrong to be inconsistant with the idea of a loving God. Don't you?

Bri mentioned a coherent definition earlier.

I must have missed it. Can you show it again?

 

[Tricky]

Some would argue that choosing between two positive outcomes doesn't allow free will because the agent doesn't really care one way or the other. But for the purposes of this discussion, what I meant by free will was the freedom to choose right instead of wrong. My apologies. I should have stated it that way the first time.

We cannot even agree on what is right and wrong. So are we going to be punished for choosing wrong when the answers are so difficult to discern that there is wide disagreement even among Christians? What kind of God would set a trap for us like that?

 

[bruto]

Bri, though I think you're in a better position than some theists, I think there are still a couple of rough spots in your ideas. I'm willing to accept the idea that God doesn't want to sweat the petty stuff, the little doctrinal differences, etc. But this brings us back to the question of who is lying. Numerous religions claim revelation and divine authority for very specific and stringent doctrines, often involving the eternal punishment and damnation of heretics and infidels, and often enough the suggestion that they should be killed on earth. Obviously if God does not actually care about docrines, and does not seek religious wars, ethnic cleansing, genocide, slavery and persecution, either some of those revelations are false or God is lying. Assuming the former, this makes just about all religious doctrines suspect, and introduces the possibility that all organized religions are founded on lies. This could produce a kind of reverse spin of Pascal's wager, in which atheism, being the most obviously doctrine-free option, becomes the best bet, because if nothing else, it guarantees that at least you have not acted on lies.

 

[Bri]

That is obvious. But which one is right? Who decides? God? If God decides you were wrong, then are you at fault for not knowing you were wrong?

A couple of key points, but first a minor point: you ought not assume I'm a theist simply because I don't believe that you can logically disprove the existance of God.

I'm not arguing any particular notion of God, but merely stating that there are many notions of God that cannot be easily disproven by means such as the Problem of Evil. I've given some examples, but that does not imply that there aren't others, nor does it imply that God necessarily exists, only the possibility that God exists.

One example is a God who has endowed human beings with a sense of right and wrong, at least when it comes to causing and alleviating human suffering. Although I'm not sure how it would help you to disprove a God who did judge us for everything, it is possible that God does not judge us for those things that are not clearly right or wrong. But it would not be illogical for such a God to hold us accountable for those things we do that we know are wrong like causing needless suffering.

I believe in shades of morality too. I will argue that some lies are worse than others (and some are even noble). But if you propose a continuum, that still doesn't define what is at the end of the continuum. Is it "no suffering" or "absolute concordance with God" that is at the good end of the continuum?

I would argue that God's continuum may be different than ours insomuch as we don't know what constitutes the "ultimate good" and can therefore never hope to achieve it. Perhaps the best we can achieve is merely "good." Perhaps the "ultimate good" is for us humans to have the ability to choose between right and wrong, in which case we cannot equate "no suffering" with "ultimate good" since human suffering might be necessary in order to allow us to choose freely between right and wrong. Perhaps choosing to alleviate human suffering rather than to cause it is as far towards the "good" end of the spectrum as human beings can achieve.

Although I agree that human beings certainly have different opinions when it comes to morality of certain issues, I still think that all of us are remarkably similar in their ability to distinguish between right and wrong when it comes to things like needlessly causing human suffering. In fact, in many countries, people are held accountable for their actions only if they can distinguish between right and wrong. I think that many atheists would disagree with you if you implied that they couldn't tell the difference between right and wrong without believing in God.

The problem is that what we call "right and wrong" do not apply to God, at least not the way God is described by the Bible. If we did some of the things He did, we would be called very very evil. So how does God get away doing things we as humans would be shunned for? That is the problem of evil. How can morality come from God if God himself does not obey that morality?

The answer should be obvious. Only an omniscient/omnipotent being can know the full results of their actions and can control the outcome of those actions to ensure the greater good. As human beings, we can only do what we believe to be right. It is possible that actions that seem to be evil actually result in a greater good, but only God would ever be able to know that for certain.

But don't feel bad. Atheists disagree on a number of those things too.

Yes, I know!

-Bri

 

[Bri]

We cannot even agree on what is right and wrong. So are we going to be punished for choosing wrong when the answers are so difficult to discern that there is wide disagreement even among Christians? What kind of God would set a trap for us like that?

For the sake of argument, let's say that the greatest good possible is for human beings to freely choose to alleviate the needless suffering of fellow human beings rather than to cause it. It is fairly universal that human beings consider it wrong to cause needless human suffering to others. But in order for God to bring the greatest amount of good to the world, he would have to allow for the possibility of human suffering. For human beings to bring the greatest amount of good to the world, we would have to choose to alleviate human suffering.

The Problem of Evil is far from obvious in this case.

-Bri

 

[jjramsey]

Really? I don't know a single Christian who doesn't pray. A prayer is either a request for God's intervention or a thanks for His previous intervention. Some even pray that they, or their loved ones will go to heaven.

Yet most Christians nonetheless allow that the answer to their prayers is often "No" or "Not yet," which is an implicit acknowledgement that God isn't doing too much intervening.

As for hell, I consider that eternal punishment for a temporal wrong to be inconsistant with the idea of a loving God. Don't you?

Hmm, might make an exception for Hitler, but, ...

Then there is the Eastern Orthodox idea of Heaven and Hell, which is a bit different.

Anyway, my point was that one need not assume that God remains purely Deistic, a non-actor for the entirety of human history, and that some kind of afterlife may compensate for the initial lack of action on his part.

I must have missed it. Can you show it again?

Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1354626&postcount=125

 

[Tricky]

Thanks, Bri and jj. I read your replies. I'm off for the sack now, but I look forward to further discussion. Sweet dreams.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

It was you who started with the proposition that God was sending the suffering, not merely allowing it. Pointing out where your proposition leads is not begging the question.


...snip...

If you define your god as omnipotent (unlimited - see post below) then it becomes a moot point whether he sends/causes suffering or just allows it. An omnipotent god that allows or causes suffering to happen can not be defined as a "good" God in the way we generally use the terms good and evil.

To avoid this problem many Christians scholars have come up with the idea of the "greater good" (which is not the same as utilitarian concept of good), what their argument of "greater good" ends up meaning is: "God is good, if it looks as if God isn't good it's our lack of comprehension that is at fault."

 

[Darat]

For the sake of argument, let's say that the greatest good possible is for human beings to freely choose to alleviate the needless suffering of fellow human beings rather than to cause it. It is fairly universal that human beings consider it wrong to cause needless human suffering to others. But in order for God to bring the greatest amount of good to the world, he would have to allow for the possibility of human suffering. For human beings to bring the greatest amount of good to the world, we would have to choose to alleviate human suffering.

The Problem of Evil is far from obvious in this case.

-Bri

This is true for an Aquinas style limited omnipotent God (e.g. can only do that which is not impossible) but isn't true for a Descartes unlimited omnipotent God (e.g. can do anything including the impossible).

 

[Tricky]

A couple of key points, but first a minor point: you ought not assume I'm a theist simply because I don't believe that you can logically disprove the existence of God.

I'm trying (sometimes unsuccessfully) not to make assumptions. I'm trying to argue against your position. If I say "you", I intend to mean "the position you're taking". Sorry if I came off as insulting.

I'm not arguing any particular notion of God, but merely stating that there are many notions of God that cannot be easily disproven by means such as the Problem of Evil. I've given some examples, but that does not imply that there aren't others, nor does it imply that God necessarily exists, only the possibility that God exists.

I understand, and as I've already stated, the so-called "problem of evil" is only a problem for certain notions of a god. In these forums, most people assume the capital-G-God to be the God of Christ. That's not always a correct assumption, but it is correct more often than not. But in order to show that a given notion of god possibly exists, you must give us the characteristics of that god for which you are supporting the possibility. Otherwise what you wind up saying is "something that I have no description of exists and I'm calling it God". Obviously, that's a position that makes discussion difficult.

One example is a God who has endowed human beings with a sense of right and wrong, at least when it comes to causing and alleviating human suffering. Although I'm not sure how it would help you to disprove a God who did judge us for everything, it is possible that God does not judge us for those things that are not clearly right or wrong. But it would not be illogical for such a God to hold us accountable for those things we do that we know are wrong like causing needless suffering.

Problem is, there are lots of things, including causing suffering, which are not clearly right or wrong. To take one from that list I gave, what about the death penalty? Is that causing unnecessary suffering, or alleviating it? Both proponents and opponents of the death penalty argue vehemently that their side is for the "greater good", and in many cases, they claim God agrees.

The point is that there are disagreements for even the most basic of "right and wrong" beliefs. Claiming divine support does nothing to resolve those disagreements. Right and wrong are decided by humans, not by God.

I would argue that God's continuum may be different than ours insomuch as we don't know what constitutes the "ultimate good" and can therefore never hope to achieve it. Perhaps the best we can achieve is merely "good." Perhaps the "ultimate good" is for us humans to have the ability to choose between right and wrong, in which case we cannot equate "no suffering" with "ultimate good" since human suffering might be necessary in order to allow us to choose freely between right and wrong. Perhaps choosing to alleviate human suffering rather than to cause it is as far toward the "good" end of the spectrum as human beings can achieve.

I am a great believer in the moral principle of alleviating suffering, including the pragmatic realization that sometimes you have to be "cruel to be kind". I believe this is good for humanity, and maybe the world in general. But this is a moral principle born of empathy, not heaven. I think that the reason that there are certain widely accepted views of right and wrong is that humans are, on the whole, empathetic animals. Certainly morality is not the provenance of any particular concept of god/God or of atheism. To me, that strongly suggests that there is no connection between morality and any sort of god. But if you are a moral person (according to my standards), I don't care if you claim God or Cthulhu as your inspiration.

Although I agree that human beings certainly have different opinions when it comes to morality of certain issues, I still think that all of us are remarkably similar in their ability to distinguish between right and wrong when it comes to things like needlessly causing human suffering. In fact, in many countries, people are held accountable for their actions only if they can distinguish between right and wrong. I think that many atheists would disagree with you if you implied that they couldn't tell the difference between right and wrong without believing in God.

On many things, yes, yet there are still cultures which mutilate their children, allow husbands to murder their wives, and perhaps (and of this I am not sure) condone cannibalism. And these are not atheist cultures.

One of the reasons that so many foreign countries distrust or even despise America is that we have a tendency to try to forcibly install our own morality on them. Heck, even in our own country we cannot decide whether or not it is okay to torture people if we think we have a good reason. No, I don't think the ability to distinguish between right and wrong is at all clear-cut. What we are better at is deciding what is lawful and unlawful, because those things are codified. In an ideal world, laws and my morality would be in lock-step, but obviously they are not.

The answer should be obvious. Only an omniscient/omnipotent being can know the full results of their actions and can control the outcome of those actions to ensure the greater good. As human beings, we can only do what we believe to be right. It is possible that actions that seem to be evil actually result in a greater good, but only God would ever be able to know that for certain.

And this is my problem with such concepts of God. If you do not and cannot know what God wants, how can you possibly hope to follow His plan? How does your behavior change if you go from a situation where there is an unfathomable God, to one where there is no God? And there is nothing that I can see that indicates a divine presence in the universe that is opposed to suffering. The only thing I see opposed to suffering is humans. Humans of very diverse belief systems.

Yes, I know!

[Mr. Rogers]Knew ya did.[/Mr. Rogers]

 

[Tricky]

For the sake of argument, let's say that the greatest good possible is for human beings to freely choose to alleviate the needless suffering of fellow human beings rather than to cause it. It is fairly universal that human beings consider it wrong to cause needless human suffering to others. But in order for God to bring the greatest amount of good to the world, he would have to allow for the possibility of human suffering. For human beings to bring the greatest amount of good to the world, we would have to choose to alleviate human suffering.

The Problem of Evil is far from obvious in this case.

But we simply don't know what is going to alleviate suffering the most. Does torturing prisoners alleviate suffering? You could make a case that it does. So you make these choices based on your own perception of good and evil.

Some of the awful things that happen in this world would lie close to the "absolutely evil" scale. I cannot conceive of any circumstances where I would send a tsunami to kill many thousands of people including innocent children. If you allow that sort of thing to be okay for God to do because it is part of some "greater plan", then you give this God leeway to do absolutely anything. How can you possible call such a being moral?

What if killing all humans to alleviate the suffering of other more numerous animals were part of God's plan? Would you be okay with a God like that?

 

[Tricky]

Yet most Christians nonetheless allow that the answer to their prayers is often "No" or "Not yet," which is an implicit acknowledgement that God isn't doing too much intervening.

If you receive an answer at all, that's a kind of intervention. If you receive no answer, why would you assume that was God saying "no" rather than that there was no God?

Then there is the Eastern Orthodox idea of Heaven and Hell, which is a bit different.

But no more rational. It still involves disembodied souls, a concept for which there is no evidence.

What is your concept of heaven, assuming you have one?

Anyway, my point was that one need not assume that God remains purely Deistic, a non-actor for the entirety of human history, and that some kind of afterlife may compensate for the initial lack of action on his part.

Then you run into the problem of "when does He intervene?" How can we know He has intervened? In order for this concept of God to mean anything, it must have some characteristics or behaviors that you can define.

Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1354626&postcount=125

Ah. This one.

Which is why few people define "omnipotent" as "able to do anything including the impossible" but rather "able to do all that is possible." Similarly, "omniscient" is seldom defined as "able to know anything including the unknowable," but instead "able to know all that is knowable." Start there if you wish to attempt to disprove the existance of gods.

With due respect to Bri, that definition is useless. What things are "impossible"? Things that God can't do. What things are there that God can't do? Impossible things.

And can you possibly give me an example of an "unknowable" thing? Let me guess. You don't know.

So you see can't "start there" at that definition. Which part of a circle is the start?

We've already been down the rathole of trying to show that certain phrases have no logical meaning and we find that we agree on some and disagree on others.

 

[jjramsey]

If you receive no answer, why would you assume that was God saying "no" rather than that there was no God?

Because we were talking about Christians' assumptions about prayer, and Christians obviously assume there is a God.

What is your concept of heaven, assuming you have one?

For the sake of this discussion, the important part about heaven is that it would mean that this universe with its suffering isn't all there is. A God who has a pleasant afterlife planned is at least potentially more benevolent than one that doesn't.

With due respect to Bri, that definition is useless. What things are "impossible"? Things that God can't do.

No. What "things" are impossible? Logically impossible "things." Why? Because logical impossible "things" aren't actually things.

 

[Darat]

(Underline me)

...snip...

. A God who has a pleasant afterlife planned is at least potentially more benevolent than one that doesn't.

...snip...

But only "more" - it still means he is capable of willfully causing evil things to happen so by most definitions of those words can no longer be described as perfectly good.