well I agree that a 5 year old could understand it. Worrying that you can't, wouldn't you say?

You don't seem to know what omnibenevolence involves.

I don't know you, so I can't tell. As I said, it depends: — Apollodorus

I'm just trying to figure out what you feel is or is not materialist or materialistic when it comes to interest in such things as music, poetry, science, gardening and, say, the arts.

If I listen to Brahm's First Symphony, for example, and don't think about God or the spiritual as I do so, but admire and enjoy the skill with which it's composed, the skill of the musicians playing it, and the sound of it, is it appropriate to describe what I feel or think as materialist or materialistic? I would say no, but there is no question--as far as I'm concerned--that my admiration and enjoyment is sensual in that my senses are gratified and that what causes that gratification is material--instruments are being played, sound waves/vibrations are created. Paintings are material, so are poems, so are flowers; so are we as we experience them.

I'm just trying to figure out what you feel is or is not materialist or materialistic when it comes to interest in such things as music, poetry, science, gardening and, say, the arts. — Ciceronianus the White

Nobody disputes that music, poetry, etc. can be enjoyable and even beneficial. However, the way I see it, it's a question of balance. A person may enjoy listening to Classical music whilst another may be dying of starvation. Materialist concerns are alright as long as they don't deflect attention from other concerns, e.g., from the moral or ethical sphere such as social or economic justice.

If you see God as some universal principle of goodness, justice, etc., i.e., of things that are of value to the individual and to society, then anything that diverts attention from that is detrimental.

Well not really. Having such mentality/morality to perform such tasks which would make other individuals qualify you as a good person is all that takes. Religions partially do create that morality in it's believers' minds. But it also increases the difference/gap between people to some extent :)
Besides, it's not always possible for a religion to change you to a good person. You need to be in that certain state to be so. It's not mainly religion that changes you. It's mainly how your percieve and experience it.
that's what I think.

Not sure any economic theory "holds water" though. Marx helped us understand capitalism a bit better, but nobody ever has the final word.

If we can't change things, at least we ought to be honest about the facts and not pretend that neo-Marxists or neo-liberals or whoever have all the answers when they clearly don't. — Apollodorus

That seems gratuitous and angry. People try to find solutions to their problems. Should one get pissed about that?

Plus who said we can't change things?

Not sure any economic theory "holds water" though. — Olivier5

That's what I'm trying to say, I only gave Marx as an example because he is held by some (including those who never read him) to be some kind of economic genius and a panacea to economic problems when in fact in Capital he tends to describe more than prescribe. And because we had already mentioned him in the discussion. If it isn't Marxism, it's Keynesianism or some other -ism. They're ALL the same, just theory.

I'm not angry at all. It may sound that way when I'm typing fast while doing other things at the same time. People do have a life outside this forum. So, I wouldn't read too much into it. Anyway, you have a great day.

They're ALL the same, just theory. — Apollodorus

And that too is theory...

You don't seem to know what omnibenevolence involves. — Bartricks

Fair enough. Let's see:
"noun
(with reference to a deity) perfect or unlimited goodness."

Well, that is a problem if God is also omnipotent. Either you see the problem or you do not. Which is it? Or will you argue that every thing that has happened is simply evidence of God's manifest unlimited goodness?

Or will you argue that every thing that has happened is simply evidence of God's manifest unlimited goodness? — tim wood

Your own definition says "perfect or unlimited goodness"

noun (with reference to a deity) perfect or unlimited goodness." — tim wood

Why do you insist on the "unlimited" bit and forget about "perfect"?

Plus, there is no law that says that "unlimited" must be taken in the absolute sense of the word. If God is in control of his own benevolence then it is for him to decide how to implement it. If it is "perfect" or "unlimited" from his perspective then it doesn't matter how people see it.

Edit. In other words, "unlimited benevolence" means unlimited by anyone else. God may still limit his own benevolence as he pleases. And even "evil" may count as benevolence if it is in the service of a greater good.

Ergo, no problem.

Explain how being fully good is incompatible with being able to do anything.

You two are lost! And in ways that are disgraceful!

First, not my definition.
Second, "unlimited" means unlimited, not limited.
Third, omni- means all.

Consider the worst of things that have ever happened - we need not name them; it's enough we know they happened. Of course for an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God these things that we consider horrors of evil are necessarily the best of all things, none better, and none worse, for how could they be better or worse if wrought by God? Sheer shining perfection of the most perfect kind by the perfect being. Is that what you say?

Or do you argue that was not His doing, but rather someone else's. Then He's not an omni-! And arguably, if not an omni- then not God, at least how many thinking people regard the matter. In any case, the omnis in question when combined yield contradiction. But this realization does not occur in the confines of the three-foot-circle that marks the horizon of your combined intelligences - hence the disgrace.

And if you think you're arguing with me, think again. You display your foolishness against at least the two-thousand-year history of Christian thinking, with a peak with Martin Luther.

But we don't even need that. If a being can do whatever s/he wants, and can only do good, then either s/he cannot do what s/he wants, or everything is good. Is your argument that everything is good?

You're the confused one! Jeez. You're confusing questions about the coherence of the divine attributes with problems of evil. Focus.

Now, once more, show that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible. That is, show that it is not possible for a being to be both at once. Show that a being who, by definition, can do anything at all cannot be omnibenevolent at the same time. Good luck!

And note: omnibenevolent means being fully good. It does not mean 'incapable of being bad'. (Indeed, if a someone is good of necessity - that is, if they are incapable of doing anything other than the right and the good - then they will be less good than someone who was capable of doing otherwise and didn't).

Is a being all good all good all the time or not all the time. Is a being all powerful (potent) such all the time or not all the time. If not all the time, then not all.

Further, if all the time, then at all times. That, or not all. In terms of potency, then, all that is must be all that is possible, for were the being to refrain from the possible, then he is under cause of some kind, and thus not all.

And then necessarily, all of it is good, and must be. But then there is no evil nor can be any evil. But if you have never encountered evil in your life such that you know that evil exists, then lucky you and may you stay that way. But it also means you do not know what you're talking about and think that you do.

And were it to be the case that there is no evil in the world, how does the world account that? On the basis of deferred reward? That merely confirms the evil, for otherwise why are rewards deferred?

Deal yourself substantively with these questions. No more Waaah! or whining. Think of the one you love most - if there is such. Think of that worst that can happen to that person. Now call upon yourself to rejoice on its happening, because the worst thing you can think of, happening to worst person it could happen to, is on your terms a perfect good, and you to celebrate in happiness. I think that way madness lies.

Is a being all good all good all the time or not all the time. Is a being all powerful (potent) such all the time or not all the time. If not all the time, then not all. — tim wood

An all good being is good all the time. They don't have to be. They just are.

An all powerful being is capable of being powerful all the time. They don't have to be (if at any point they had to be, then they would not be omnipotent). They just are.

You don't understand these attributes. You seem to think that being all powerful involves being incapable of not being. Not it doesn't. And/or you think that if you're capable of doing something, then at some point you must do it (no, that obviously doesn't follow).

So, being all-powerful means being able to do anything. That doesn't mean you're doing everything you're capable of, does it? It means being 'able' to do things. I am able to throw the mug in front of me through the window. That doesn't mean I'm doing it. I'm not. It doesn't mean I'll ever do it. I'm fairly sure I won't. I am capable of doing it, nonetheless.

An omnipotent being is capable of doing anything. THat includes being omnibenevolent. Obviously. And thus there is no incompatibility between these attributes. Even a 5 year old can understand this but, it seems, not you.

Being omnibenevolent means being fully good. Being fully good formally just involves being fully approved of by Reason. And as Reason is God, it means being fully approved of by God. And as God is omnipotent and so is capable of adjusting himself were any aspect of him to displease him, then we can conclude - once more - that the person of Reason fully approves of himself and is thus fully good.

Two arguments (i keep giving them). One showing that omnipotence is compatible with omnibenevolence. And the other showing that an omnipotent being will also be omnibenevolent.

Now this is all very simple and straightforward. It isn't rocket science. It's obvious.

Sweet Jesus you do not know what benevolent means! And God is (as) reason? Do you mean subject to reason?

To the chase: from c. 1860 - 1960 there were at least five great genocides, a number of lesser genocides, two world wars and a bunch of greater and lesser other wars, and all the misery and horror that can accompany these. Your turn: no evil, and all good. Right?

If I listen to Brahm's First Symphony, for example, and don't think about God or the spiritual as I do so, but admire and enjoy the skill with which it's composed, the skill of the musicians playing it, and the sound of it, is it appropriate to describe what I feel or think as materialist or materialistic? — Ciceronianus the White

I'm left a physicalist when I hear Brahms's First, an acosmist when I hear his Fourth. I think there's something about that E minor first movement that awakens my numinosity gland and suppresses my physicalist gland.

And then necessarily, all of it is good, and must be. — tim wood

You're not following, are you? There's no 'necessity' to anything if an omnipotent being exists, for an omnipotent being can do anything. Thus no truth is necessarily true, for the omnipotent being has the power to falsify it.

Now, the problem of evil. Would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being create anything evil? I don't think it is reasonable to think so. As they're omnipotent, they can do anything, and thus they are capable of not creating anything evil. And as they're omnibenevolent, it is reasonable - given our understanding of what morally goodness in us involves - to suppose that they will not want to create anything evil. And thus they won't. So they haven't.

You have trouble understanding the implications of things. They. Haven't. Created. Anything. Evil.

First, not my definition.
Second, "unlimited" means unlimited, not limited.
Third, omni- means all. — tim wood

I know it isn't "your definition” but it was the definition that you yourself decided to choose. Are you retracting it now?

Edit. You need to start from the fact that God is omnipotent which implies absolute power and freedom of will which means he can do as he pleases irrespective of what humans think of it.

As for "unlimited", etc., see my previous post.

From what I see you've already lost the argument, though I'm not surprised that you aren't perspicacious enough to realize it or man enough to admit it.

Your problem stems from the fact that you choose to ignore the other side's arguments which essentially means that you're talking to yourself. If that’s what you want, fine. End of the story.

But if you're serious about having a discussion then you need to consider the counter-arguments to your claims. So, it’s your choice.

Anyway, from a theistic point of view, God isn’t a charity organization. His job is to govern the universe and keep the human race and other creatures under control, not to be nice to people. He manifests his love for humans by creating them, providing for them and rewarding them according to their actions, like a good father. That's why in Christianity and other religions he is called “Father”.

If suffering is your problem, it is no proof of absence of benevolence. As I said, it may serve a greater good, it may be punishment for previous transgressions, it may serve to make souls better beings, etc., etc. Souls need to have some freedom of choice and assume responsibility for their actions, otherwise there would be no justice and without justice there would be no benevolence.

Sweet Jesus you do not know what benevolent means! And God is (as) reason? Do you mean subject to reason? — tim wood

No, I don't mean 'subject to reason'. Christ. Reason with a capital R refers to the source of all the imperatives of Reason and all normative reasons.

We are subject to Reason, meaning that Reason's imperatives are directed at us.

Look, this is all a bit above your intellectual pay grade, isn't it? Reason is the source of reasons. But he is not subject to reasons, unless he addresses himself (which would be weird).

Anyway, here's the argument that proves God.

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. All existent imperatives have an existent mind that issues them.
3. Therefore, the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason will be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (God)
5. Therefore, God exists.

Here's what follows from that:

1. God would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
2. God exists (see above).
3. Therefore, God has not suffered innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
4. Tim is living in ignorance in a dangerous world
5. Therefore Tim is not innocent.

Tim deserves to be here - deserves to be living in ignorance in a dangerous world. God doesn't love us Timmy, sorry. Hates us. Couldn't give much of a rat's bum what happens to us. But how - how can a good person hate Timmy? It's a puzzler.

It's a prison matey. And the punishment is not to be cared about by the omnipotent being, but to be subject to the company of others like yourself. Like me! Welcome to prison Earth: you're doing a life sentence!

His job is to govern the universe and keep the human race and other creatures under control, not to be nice to people. — Apollodorus

Letting us have world wars with millions killed, trash the planet, and cause mass extinctions of “other creatures” is God’s way of controlling us? It’s all part of The Plan, you say? Seems like a really shitty plan.

As already stated:

Souls need to have some freedom of choice and assume responsibility for their actions, otherwise there would be no justice and without justice there would be no benevolence. — Apollodorus

As for genocides, etc., it was humans who did it, not God.

The world may be "imperfect" in the eyes of some people, but it isn't for them to decide. Plus you can always create your own if you don't like it.

You said “His job is to govern the universe and keep the human race and other creatures under control, not to be nice to people.”

If he’s controlling us then history is being made according to God’s plan. I’m just saying that it appears to be a really really shitty plan.

He doesn't need to control us stricto sensu, he only needs to keep us under control (in the same way riot police might control a mob) so we don't disturb too much the order of the world he created. If we do, then we get punished for it. People are beginning to learn the lesson, they are kinder to one another, they care more about animals and the environment, etc. It's a slow process, but we're getting there. So his plan seems to be working.

Anyway, it is just a logical consideration or explanation from a theistic perspective. Nothing to get upset about.

There's no 'necessity' to anything if an omnipotent being exists, for an omnipotent being can do anything. — Bartricks

Correct. Omnipotence comes first. Everything else flows and follows from that. They can't accept omnipotence and then twist and turn it to suit their own agenda because it is just illogical and a waste of time.

Nothing to get upset about. — Apollodorus

Each year over 3 million children die from hunger and undernutrition. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction rates. Climate change will significantly 'disturb the order of the world'.

Indeed none of this seems to upset you or your God.

@Apollodorus@Bartricks
Genocide. Evil or good?

Anyway, here's the argument that proves God.

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. All existent imperatives have an existent mind that issues them.
3. Therefore, the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason will be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (God)
5. Therefore, God exists. — Bartricks

1) What is an imperative of reason? Reason exists; it is the name of something some people do sometimes. And apparently some other animals. Nor would it surprise me if we find that a lot of animals are capable of at least some reason.

2) Minds reason, to be sure. No mind, no reason.

3) Reason, when being done, is being done by someone.

4) 2+2=4. Apparently that means I am God. Yes? Otherwise, yours is just an unsupported claim, seemingly of the wackdoodle persuasion.

5) Therefore God exists. It appears you mean I exist. Otherwise just another unsupported claim.

God doesn't love us Timmy, sorry. Hates us. — Bartricks

The hallmark of Reason: hate.

In sum, Bartricks, yours not even a decent bar trick. Maybe a barf trick.

Er, genocide is immoral Timmy - worrying that you have to ask.

Er, genocide is immoral Timmy - worrying that you have to ask. — Bartricks

Non sequitor, or is English your third language? Let's try again. Genocide, Evil or good?

it's immoral, other things being equal.
Evil is a quality of people more than acts. Plus there are subtleties that a blank 'evil' won't acknowledge.

Now stop asking tedious questions like a lobotomized Socrates.

Is 3 a tulip or the gulf of Mexico?