The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no god. — Banno

The only reasonable conclusion is that there is God by science given radio-astronomy and operationalized God signals through advanced radiology on pc-tablets for mind to mind communication with God. Science implies God, indeed!

Usually theologians say God let's some go to Hell in order to save and make others happy, who are happier because they were chosen and others not. Imagine people being invited to a special party. Those who miss out get a greater punishment and those who are saved a special joy

Humanism is the view that morality is found in what humans choose, and so is not found in divine commendation nor in evolutionary necessity.

Do you agree?

That is, the key ingredient in humanism is the capacity of people to become better. — Banno

Sure. I'm saying there are different ideas about what counts as moral.

Morality, as understood from a Darwinist perspective (mainly in the sense of "life is a struggle for survival" and "might makes right"), is how we can make sense of monotheism; it is in this perspective that monotheism is internally consistent morally. A Darwinist monotheist has no qualms with there being suffering, unlike the humanist.

If God exists, presumably an afterlife exists, and suffering evil is meaningless.

...a Darwinist perspective (mainly in the sense of "life is a struggle for survival" and "might makes right") — baker

This is a very narrow understanding of Darwinism. Too narrow. But even were it correct, which it isn't, it is still the result of God's actions, so doesn't explain why god is not culpable.

A common line of reasoning against God's presumed omnibenevolence goes like this:

If God was omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be ... any earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, wars, children with genetic dysfunctions, ... and in general, there wouldn't be any suffering.

But why should the absence of these things be evidence of God's benevolence?

Based on what reasoning should we conclude that the presence of those things is evidence that God (if he exists) is not benevolent? — baker

Quite right . We invented that the issues of theodicy by imagining a God with all powers, like a person, only unqualifiedly more. These notorious "omni's" create contradictions, but they are no more than logical constructions: manufactured ad absurdum.

All right, I admit, this is a crazy idea, but think about something interesting. More than thirteen billion years have passed since the big bang, and by the end of the universe, who knows how much will pass. In this period incomprehensible to human reason, the longevity of human life cannot be detected, which justifies the cosmic insignificance of us. But still, what are the chances that we exist in this tiny time frame and thinking on this? What was the chance that we were born at all? One in proportion to infinity? Can there be such a coincidence that would justify our current consciousness?

Sixty generations have passed since the fall of Rome for instance, which is a very tiny time frame compared to billions of years. In this tiny time frame, only I have more descendants than there are people on earth today. If only one of these was missing, I wouldn’t have been born. Yet it’s just a tiny time frame. What of this enormous chance can be explained with, one is proportional to infinity, if not with argument, there’s no past, present, and future, that is, what we call time is an illusion, and we circulate in a matrix indefinitely, living the same life over and over again. Of course this alone does not prove anything, but this may be at least as probable as a ratio of infinity to chance. This argument leaves the atheists speechless by the way, since even a God has better chance to exist than we have at this moment. Perhaps we all live in delusion with regards to time, life, and mortality.

SP

doesn't explain why god is not culpable. — Banno

God cannot be held accountable to us.
Because God, by definition, precedes us, contextualizes us, and makes us possible in the first place.

My point is that judging God by human standards is in conflict with the basic definition of God. One cannot hold, even if just for the purposes of argument, that God is omnimax, and then judge God, and still think one is being consistent. Either one ditches the standard definition of God, or one abstains from judgment of God. But one cannot retain both, and still be consistent.

IOW, atheists and other critics of God operate with their own idiosyncratic definitions of God, thus making their criticism of God a strawman.

The way I see is that if everything was utopian and perfect, the concept of benevolence would be meaningless. As meaningless as trying to conceive of “absolute nothingness” as a “something” in a universe that “exists” - also somethingness. We cannot imagine it. Everything we think of is something.

In order for there to be benevolence there MUST be an antithesis, a contrast to give it dimension. If everything was dark we wouldn’t call it darkness because we never knew what light is.

This is why Abrahamic religions as well as Buddhism, Taoism etc have to recognise the existence of suffering and malevolence as an irrefutable facet of being. A god couldn’t be good if they didn’t have something to act against. If there’s no choice how can one choose to be/ act or behave in any specific way?

Any self respecting deity, should there be any, would permit suffering so that we could experience pure love, ecstasy and joy by contrast. And know it by referencing the opposite.

The question would really be “ would you rather live in a state of absolute numb unfeeling emptiness or would you choose a life equal parts bad and good so that you might experience the full spectrum?

Further more if everything truly has an equal and opposite, if everything is down to probabilities that balance out, then your joy, your abundance and prosperity, your wealth and happiness is someone else’s suffering and poverty. It’s impossible for everyone to have everything all the time. So could you live with being eternally happy if it meant someone else eternally suffered to balance the books?
For me I would rather go through the motions of good and bad experience, as life has always intended. A beautiful and constant struggle.

IOW, atheists and other critics of God operate with their own idiosyncratic definitions of God, thus making their criticism of God a strawman. — baker

If that's the case (and I am not sure what version of God you are applying this too and how you know this, but you could be correct) - we can't make any comment about God at all (good or bad) since it transcends human experience and understanding. We can't know anything about it and it would be better to remain silent about the subject.

we can't make any comment about God at all (good or bad) since it transcends human experience and understanding. We can't know anything about it and it would be better to remain silent about the subject. — Tom Storm

No, such a claim of the total incapacity of humans to comment on God could be overreaching. Perhaps some humans in fact do have the proper knowledge of God, perhaps God did reveal himself to them, so they can speak with certainty.

I'm pointing toward an option that is repugnant to humanists: namely, the possibility that God is pretty much like major monotheistic religions describe him, and that the state of the world (with all its strife and suffering) is an argument precisely in favor of God's existence.

...a Darwinist perspective (mainly in the sense of "life is a struggle for survival" and "might makes right")
— baker

This is a very narrow understanding of Darwinism. — Banno

Oh, and I obviously mean Social Darwinism. When your buddies talk of this or that being "Darwinist" or "Darwin" this, "Darwin" that, you correctly understand it in terms of Social Darwinism.

I'm pointing toward an option that is repugnant to humanists: namely, the possibility that God is pretty much like major monotheistic religions describe him, and that the state of the world (with all its strife and suffering) is an argument precisely in favor of God's existence. — baker

So the suffering and cruelty of 'creation' is reflective of a cruel God who behaves like a Mafia boss in scripture? I think a lot of humanists have identified this scenario. It certainly makes sense that if there is a god he is either non-interventionist or 'evil' as far as human morality is concerned.

Nevertheless, the intrinsic goodness of God is central to most traditions I am aware of and human beings are supposed to please god by being good also. I guess, at a pinch, good could be interpreted as obedient and long suffering.

I obviously mean Social Darwinism. — baker

No, it wasn't obvious. God is a Social Darwinist and so somehow evades responsibility for his actions.

atheists and other critics of God operate with their own idiosyncratic definitions of God, — baker

...and your subservient pandering to a tyrant god is not at all idiosyncratic.

So the suffering and cruelty of 'creation' is reflective of a cruel God who behaves like a Mafia boss in scripture? I think a lot of humanists have identified this scenario. It certainly makes sense that if there is a god he is either non-interventionist or 'evil' as far as human morality is concerned. — Tom Storm

Not by human morality, but by humanist morality.

Nevertheless, the intrinsic goodness of God is central to most traditions I am aware of and human beings are supposed to please god by being good also.

Sure. But again, it's not supposed to be goodness by humanist standards, but by God's standards.

No, it wasn't obvious. God is a Social Darwinist and so somehow evades responsibility for his actions. — Banno

No. The reason why God cannot be held accountable is because he is God, not because he is a Social Darwinist.
God couldn't be held accountable even if he was a humanist.

...and your subservient pandering to a tyrant god is not at all idiosyncratic.

Ah. I'm trying to make sense of the God idea. This doesn't automatically include that I take for granted that God is on my side or that he will be or could be. Quite the contrary, actually.

Sure. But again, it's not supposed to be goodness by humanist standards, but by God's standards. — baker

I agree but since we don't (can't?) know God's mind, how could anyone assume to know if God's standards based on the information available?

By the way, what is a humanist standard of good? Isn't this largely Christianity without Jesus?

I'm trying to make sense of the God idea. — baker

And in doing so you renege on your responsibility to decide right from wrong.

Have you ever come across those miserable children who blame their parents whenever they have to walk, or struggle to do something, or fall over, or fail to get everything they imagine they want and deserve immediately and without effort?

A benevolent parent does not spoil their child, does not wrap them in cotton-wool but pushes them towards independence and responsibility.

@jorndoe Jorndoe Trilemma

1. Q knows X
2. Q doesn't like X
3. Q can prevent X

Ergo,

4. Not X

But,

5. X

Ergo,

6. Q doesn't know X OR Q likes X OR Q can't prevent X

For us, this means:

7. God knows there's evil (Ominscient)
8. God doesn't like evil (Omnibenevolent)
9. God can prevent evil (Omniptent)

Ergo,

10. Evil shouldn't exist

But,

11. Evil exists

Ergo,

12. God is not omniscient OR God is not omnibenevolent OR God is not omnipotent.

The Jorndoe Trilemma is our good ol' Epicurean paradox but with a Star Trek, futuristic, twist.

As will be obvious to you, the existence of evil doesn't imply god isn't omnibenevolent. It's possible that God's either not omnipotent or not omniscient or both.

That basically means God could be the quintessential child: good at heart but hopelessly naive and utterly powerless ( :sad:). Jesus was precisely that despite his 30 or so years: a good person who didn't have the slightest inkling of how devious people could be and, last but not the least, he was weakness personified, mercilessly tortured and then to add insult to injury, crucified till life itself jubilantly embraced death!

I agree but since we don't (can't?) know God's mind, how could anyone assume to know if God's standards based on the information available? — Tom Storm

Maybe you in particular don't know God's mind, but who's to say nobody else does either?

The power of God belief, as far as it concerns interpersonal interactions, is precisely in one party having more uncertainty about God than the other person.

By the way, what is a humanist standard of good? Isn't this largely Christianity without Jesus?

No.
Humanism.

A benevolent parent does not spoil their child, does not wrap them in cotton-wool but pushes them towards independence and responsibility. — unenlightened

Exactly, which is the justification for a Social Darwinist monotheism.

I'm trying to make sense of the God idea.
— baker

And in doing so you renege on your responsibility to decide right from wrong. — Banno

If there is objective morality, my decision about morality is moot.
If there is no objective morality, my decision about morality is irrelevant.

You're simply taking your brand of morality for granted, as if it was objective, absolute.

Maybe you in particular don't know God's mind, but who's to say nobody else does either? — baker

I know plenty of people who say they know God's mind. Pity they disagree with each other.

Do you know God's mind or are you more like me on this matter?

I personally don't know God's mind. But threatening others on the account that that one knows God's mind can be a very powerful tool in social interactions, in order to subject the other person, or get some leverage over them, or at least to gain psychological distance from them. (For this, it is actually irrelevant whether the threatener knows God's mind or not.)

What do you think has driven monotheistic conquerors to kill, rape, and pillage, if not the conviction that they have God on their side?

What do you think has driven monotheistic conquerors to kill, rape, and pillage, if not the conviction that they have God on their side? — baker

Well yes, this is a familiar and dare I say Hitchensesque argument and one I have certainly adopted form time to time. But human beings justify bad actions using a variety of means. Politics is another good one.

I have to say the more I think about this idea of a god the less coherent and comprehensible I find it. If you reduce the idea to an anthropomorphized cartoon - a fundamentalist style of deity - it become more coherent, if less believable to me.

Do you have a view about what the most plausible form of deity could be? What do you think of the Paul Tillich style 'ground of being' conception?

I have to say the more I think about this idea of a god the less coherent and comprehensible I find it. If you reduce the idea to an anthropomorphized cartoon - a fundamentalist style of deity - it become more coherent, if less believable to me.

Do you have a view about what the most plausible form of deity could be? — Tom Storm

The God of the Taliban.

What do you think of the Paul Tillich style 'ground of being' conception?

That it's impotent.
At the end of the day, life is a struggle for survival. If a concept of God doesn't reflect that and doesn't help one to get the upper hand in said struggle, then it's impotent.

Do you have a view about what the most plausible form of deity could be?
— Tom Storm
The God of the Taliban. — baker

Cool. Coherent but unlikely.

For me if God is the jealous, dictatorial, error-prone fuck-knuckle he appears to be in the Old Testament, then we should blow a raspberry in his direction.

Someone who uses this line of reasoning needs to show a necessary causal link between omnibenevolence (being all loving) and the removal/prevention of suffering. Most theists who believe that God is all loving would reject the claim that the good thing to do in any situation is to minimise suffering since most religious ethical systems based on an all loving God are either deontological (divine command theory, natural law theory) or based in virtue ethics (Plantinga's free will defence, Hick's soul building theodicy).

Cool. Coherent but unlikely.

For me if God is the jealous, dictatorial, error-prone fuck-knuckle he appears to be in the Old Testament, then we should blow a raspberry in his direction. — Tom Storm

This is what God loves and rewards:

I think you are worthless. — James Riley

I'm not willing to pay any of your bills. If you don't social distance, don't mask and don't vax, and if you get sick and go to the hospital and take up a bed that my wife or kid or me need for covid or some other reason, I will not only not pay your bills, but I'll rip the vent out of your mouth and dump your worthless carcass out the window and tell the Hippocratic Oath doc to forget your ass and get to work on me or mine. — James Riley

:100: — tim wood

Regarding the rest of your post, it's not worth my time. It's stupid Faux News, Tucker Carlsonesque BS. — James Riley

It's because right-wingers are doing so good in life that one should believe in God, _their_ God. They always win.

then we should blow a raspberry in his direction. — Tom Storm

And how is that supposed to help you?