Omniscience and Omnibenevolence

[Yasa]

I would like to provide and argument involving the classic problem of evil, as well as compatability of omniscience with free will. For this thread, I'm referring to the popular "tri-omni" God who is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerfull.

--An omniscient being knows all. This includes the infinite future of all events, actions, etc.

--An all-loving being would not purposely pursue an action that would lead to the suffering of innocent humans.

--According to many popular religions, humans were created by a tri-omni God. Thus, there was a time when humans did not exist.

--The majority of people go to hell. Thus, the majority of people who have died reside in hell.

--Hell is an afterlife of suffering where unrighteous souls are punished for eternity.

--Thus, such a being would know, before the creation of humans, that most would end up suffering eternally.

--Given that God continued to create humans, it is evident that the he purposely pursued his goal of creating humans with the intent that most would end up suffering eternally.

--Therefore, God is not all-loving.

As we can see, if God didn't wish infinite suffering upon his creations, he could have changed they manner in which he created us. Theists are probably inclined to reply by saying that God gave humans free will, and it's their fault for evil, and ending up in hell. This would imply God could not forsee the result of the majority of his creations ending up suffering eternally. So, either God is not all-loving, or God's omniscience is not compatable with our free will--i.e. God is not omniscient.

[nerdvincent]

Hypothesis:
Let's say there is a God.
Let's say God is perfect.
Let's say we don't have free will.

Demonstration: If we don't have free will, this means God created us and control us. But we can go to hell (according to christian mythology).
So such a God, creating us, controlling us then sending us to hell would just be plain sadistic. But God is supposed to be perfect, so there is a contradiction.

Consequences:
1/ God exist, but we have free will (see above)
2/ God doesn't exist so we have free will.

Q.E.D.

In fact I was inspired by Spinoza's Ethics. He shown in a cartesian way similar to this one how his pantheist definition of God can't have emotion, will or any human value. Read Ethics, it worth way more than Bible, and it is freely avalable on the internet.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Yasa -According to many popular religions, humans were created by a tri-omni God. Thus, there was a time when humans did not exist.

What popular religions?

Your argument is logically correct, but if it doesn't apply to someone's real-world religious beliefs, who cares?

[Yasa]

Quote by: tivodan1116 What popular religions? Your argument is logically correct, but if it doesn't apply to someone's real-world religious beliefs, who cares?

I offer Christianity as an example. Would you disagree?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Yasa I offer Christianity as an example. Would you disagree?

Yes I disagree.

The Christian God destroyed cities, armies, people, hell he destroyed the entire population of the Earth save a few people in a boat at one point. He kicked people out of paradise and OBVIOUSLY due to all of the bad things that happen in the Bible is content to let them happen.

His son Jesus also allowed bad things to happen, not even figuring omniscience - bad things happened right in front of him.

If you believe the accounts of the Bible - less than that, if you believe the accounts of the Bible represent what Christians believe about their God - that God is obviously not "all-loving".

[Domino]

Yasa and nerdvincent's arguments have a common feature: that we do not have free will. It seems to me that, if one assumes that we do not have free will, one will, inevitably, be faced with a God who is undeserving of worship. That is not, necessarily, the case, if one assumes that we do have free will.

[Yasa]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Yes I disagree. The Christian God destroyed cities, armies, people, hell he destroyed the entire population of the Earth save a few people in a boat at one point. He kicked people out of paradise and OBVIOUSLY due to all of the bad things that happen in the Bible is content to let them happen. His son Jesus also allowed bad things to happen, not even figuring omniscience - bad things happened right in front of him. If you believe the accounts of the Bible - less than that, if you believe the accounts of the Bible represent what Christians believe about their God - that God is obviously not "all-loving".

This is exactly what I'm trying to show the theists who believe that their God is indeed all-loving. As far as I know, most Christians hold the belief that their God is omnibenevolent. If not, then my argument is only to those theists who do believe in such a God (and I am sure there are some).

Quote by: Domino Yasa and nerdvincent's arguments have a common feature: that we do not have free will. It seems to me that, if one assumes that we do not have free will, one will, inevitably, be faced with a God who is undeserving of worship. That is not, necessarily, the case, if one assumes that we do have free will.

Not true. My argument assumes we have free will. I argue that a God's omniscience is not compatible with free will. Thus, either God is not omniscient (my conclusion), or we have no free will (in which nerdvincent's argument applies).

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Yasa Not true. My argument assumes we have free will.

Same for me. My point is that if God is perfect, we must have free will, and that if he just doesn't exist, we still have free will.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Yasa I would like to provide and argument involving the classic problem of evil, as well as compatability of omniscience with free will. For this thread, I'm referring to the popular "tri-omni" God who is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerfull. --An omniscient being knows all. This includes the infinite future of all events, actions, etc. --An all-loving being would not purposely pursue an action that would lead to the suffering of innocent humans. --According to many popular religions, humans were created by a tri-omni God. Thus, there was a time when humans did not exist. --The majority of people go to hell. Thus, the majority of people who have died reside in hell. --Hell is an afterlife of suffering where unrighteous souls are punished for eternity. --Thus, such a being would know, before the creation of humans, that most would end up suffering eternally. --Given that God continued to create humans, it is evident that the he purposely pursued his goal of creating humans with the intent that most would end up suffering eternally. --Therefore, God is not all-loving. As we can see, if God didn't wish infinite suffering upon his creations, he could have changed they manner in which he created us. Theists are probably inclined to reply by saying that God gave humans free will, and it's their fault for evil, and ending up in hell. This would imply God could not forsee the result of the majority of his creations ending up suffering eternally. So, either God is not all-loving, or God's omniscience is not compatable with our free will--i.e. God is not omniscient.

I feel that your conception of "all-loving" is severely lacking.

To love someone is entirely different from preventing them from coming to harm. Love does not require safeguarding or prevention of suffering.

That a being is all-loving would not mandate he prevent suffering, merely that even as he allows them to come to harm, he still loves them.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Fangrim I feel that your conception of "all-loving" is severely lacking. To love someone is entirely different from preventing them from coming to harm. Love does not require safeguarding or prevention of suffering. That a being is all-loving would not mandate he prevent suffering, merely that even as he allows them to come to harm, he still loves them.

There is a difference between preventing suffering, and being a direct cause of eternal torture to an innocent being. Either way, I would hope that if someone truly loved another, they would do all in their power to prevent the harm and suffering of them. In general, I think most would agree with me on this point.

If you still think it's possible to genuinely love someone and willingly allow them to suffer even though they don't deserve it, I hope you can provide an example of such a case.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Yasa There is a difference between preventing suffering, and being a direct cause of eternal torture to an innocent being. Either way, I would hope that if someone truly loved another, they would do all in their power to prevent the harm and suffering of them. In general, I think most would agree with me on this point. If you still think it's possible to genuinely love someone and willingly allow them to suffer even though they don't deserve it, I hope you can provide an example of such a case.

Not recognizing God is inherently a trespass of God's will, a sin, and thus deserves punishment if God is to be just.

Thus, I need only show that one can love someone even as one punishes him.
Easy example: parents giving punishment to their children

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim I feel that your conception of "all-loving" is severely lacking.

Quote by: Morality Games Alteration of the definition of even a single word can render whole statements functionless or dysfunctional in contexts where before they appeared true -- in this way, it is possible to make statements false without changing their external structure, but because definition-alteration invariably removes statements from their original contexts, it is impossible to prove statements are wrong in their original contexts just by changing the definition of one or more words. To elaborate, people often attempt to make an argument appear right or wrong by playing around with definitions, but they do this without realizing that the definition of any word can be changed in anyway, and that it is only certain nonconscious adherence to convention which prevents them from thinking this way -- they do not think to change the words "the" or "is" as frequently as that of "justice", but they could do that just as easily. Furthermore, they frequently fail to realize that altering a word automatically removes it, at least partially, from the original context, and that this inevitably leads to the argument getting off subject. This is because the original context is an important part of the original subject.

Any chance you're going to debate the topic without trying to monkey with the definition of "all-loving"? Are you able to participate without changing "all-loving" to mean "not-loving-at-all"?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Yasa This is exactly what I'm trying to show the theists who believe that their God is indeed all-loving. As far as I know, most Christians hold the belief that their God is omnibenevolent. If not, then my argument is only to those theists who do believe in such a God (and I am sure there are some).

I'm almost there with you. It's just that I think, sort of like fangrim does, that the definition of "loving" is not quite as easy as it's made out to be in your OP.

Furthermore, I don't see any Biblical justification for the belief that God is all-loving. Loving, yes, but not all.

Quote by: Zhavric Any chance you're going to debate the topic without trying to monkey with the definition of "all-loving"? Are you able to participate without changing "all-loving" to mean "not-loving-at-all"?

I think he made it pretty clear where he stood on the concept of what "all-loving" is:

Quote by: Fangrim I feel that your conception of "all-loving" is severely lacking. To love someone is entirely different from preventing them from coming to harm. Love does not require safeguarding or prevention of suffering. That a being is all-loving would not mandate he prevent suffering, merely that even as he allows them to come to harm, he still loves them.

Quote by: Fangrim Not recognizing God is inherently a trespass of God's will, a sin, and thus deserves punishment if God is to be just. Thus, I need only show that one can love someone even as one punishes him. Easy example: parents giving punishment to their children

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Any chance you're going to debate the topic without trying to monkey with the definition of "all-loving"? Are you able to participate without changing "all-loving" to mean "not-loving-at-all"?

Zhavric, you do realize that I never disputed the OP's definition of all-loving, or that this "tri-omni" God could have that quality?

I merely contested his premise that extrapolated action from that quality.

An all-loving being would not purposely pursue an action that would lead to the suffering of innocent humans.

In fact, the OP never even defined "all-loving"!
The OP's premise is faulty. It skips directly from the feeling of omni-love to the action of omni-protection. And there's where I have issue.

Kindly stop having a knee-jerk reaction to disagree with me, and instead actually read and understand my posts rather than going on superficial tangents of redefinition.

[Yasa]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Furthermore, I don't see any Biblical justification for the belief that God is all-loving. Loving, yes, but not all.

By all-loving I mean nothing special. I simply refer to God loving everyone. That is, every soul that exists, God loves.

Quote by: Fangrim Not recognizing God is inherently a trespass of God's will, a sin, and thus deserves punishment if God is to be just. Thus, I need only show that one can love someone even as one punishes him. Easy example: parents giving punishment to their children

Your example fails. In the case with God, it is not punishment. I am completely in agreement with being able to love someone while being able to punish them.

However, my OP depends on the fact that God knew before he created us how things would end up, yet he did it anyways and didn't change the way things were created. Thus, he's either quite a non-loving God, or he could not forsee the majority of the creations he loves ending up in hell.

Imagine you have the power to create a colony of ants. You also happen to know the future. You know that the ants that leave the colony underground and attempt to roam the surface of the Earth will displease you. Those ants will be looked upon with your divine magnifying glass. You can see all of this coming. Yet you continue to create the ants just the way that you know they will end up being burnt to a crispt in fiery suffering! An outsider might say, given the events, that you are not an all-loving ant God. It would also seem like you desired to bring about suffering to your ants.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I think he made it pretty clear where he stood on the concept of what "all-loving" is:

Yes. He's very clearly trying to change the definition which, as we've established, isn't a tenable form of debate.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Zhavric, you do realize that I never disputed the OP's definition of all-loving, or that this "tri-omni" God could have that quality? I merely contested his premise that extrapolated action from that quality.

Right. You're trying to change the definition of "all-loving" to include actions incompatable with "all-loving". This is like saying, "I'm not challenging the definition of pro-life or that a evangelical Christian republican presidential candidate could have that quality. I'm just implying that the pro-lifer is pro-abortion."

In fact, the OP never even defined "all-loving"!

And it doesn't have to. We don't need a definition of something as clear as all-loving provided individuals like you don't attempt to muddy the water by implying that all-loving gods can be all-loving AND allow suffering.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Fangrim The OP's premise is faulty. It skips directly from the feeling of omni-love to the action of omni-protection. And there's where I have issue.

Quote by: Yasa --An all-loving being would not purposely pursue an action that would lead to the suffering of innocent humans.

I don't want to get into a debate about the definition of what love is, and I think it's pretty fair you grant the above premise. From a common sense view I think most people would find it to be rather acceptable.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Yasa I don't want to get into a debate about the definition of what love is, and I think it's pretty fair you grant the above premise. From a common sense view I think most people would find it to be rather acceptable.

While it's not my definition, I'm willing to accept that one, incomplete as it may be.

With that in mind:

Quote by: Yasa --An all-loving being would not purposely pursue an action that would lead to the suffering of innocent humans.

OK, but purposely pursue and allow to happen are different things.

--According to many popular religions, humans were created by a tri-omni God.

As I said, false. But I'm willing to work from this premise, I suppose, despite that you're arguing in a vacuum, since I don't know of any popular religion that believes this.

--The majority of people go to hell. Thus, the majority of people who have died reside in hell.

Based upon what? Once again we reach the central problem of debating religion, specifically debating religion with atheists. The debate starts with someone espousing a religious view that is certainly not shared by all.

So now, when I say, "well, in my religion everyone goes to heaven," what happens next?

As I've pointed out before, doing a logical "proof" that disproves one religion doesn't disprove them all (and actually usually doesn't even disprove one).

As the rest of your post is premised on that last statement I quoted, I need not go further until you rectify that situation.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric And it doesn't have to. We don't need a definition of something as clear as all-loving provided individuals like you don't attempt to muddy the water by implying that all-loving gods can be all-loving AND allow suffering.

Quote by: Yasa I don't want to get into a debate about the definition of what love is, and I think it's pretty fair you grant the above premise. From a common sense view I think most people would find it to be rather acceptable.

I never indicated any desire to debate what love means. I knew that we would all accept that love is a feeling, an emotion.

What I wanted to contest is your assumption that because God feels something that he must take action.

You've constructed one set of assumptions: that the God in question is all-loving, omniscient, and omnipotent. And that's fine.

But when you extrapolate from these assumptions argumentative premises, you HAVE to allow others to contest your extrapolation. You have to logically defend your argumentation, else why is this even posted in a debate forum?

Defend your premise: that all-loving necessitates omni-protection (that love indicates protection, since here "all-love" is simply "loving everybody, unconditionally" according to Yasa), and a feeling necessitates action.