I'm not really following your examples of "net good." To me the question is whether a certain action is good or bad. Yes people can make arguments about whether their actions are good or bad. However, their subjective view does not change affect the question: is a certain action good or bad?

Accordingly, relevant to your formulation of the POE, I don't care what some hypothetical person may argue. I'm asking your opinions on existence.

Is it good or bad action to bring a new human being into this world?

Similarly, if you were put in the position of God, holding the current existence of the world in your will, the action at question is do you instantly extinguish the world or allow it to continue. Which action is good?

Do you have a view on those two questions?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Your definition is simplistic and is countered by arguments such as can God make 1+ 1 = 3. or Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it.

These kind of examples come from saying he can do all things. Even early theologians realized this. Some would say God is all powerful in the areas he would choose to influence.

So, by extenuation, you are saying that a world without evil in it is a logical incongruence much like 1+1=3?

Quote:

I'm not really following your examples of "net good." To me the question is whether a certain action is good or bad. Yes people can make arguments about whether their actions are good or bad. However, their subjective view does not change affect the question: is a certain action good or bad?

I don't think you are understanding the concept of "net good" then -- which is weird because you were just arguing for the concept when it comes to God. The idea of net good is that we total up all the good, and total up all the evil and at the end we come to an equation that has Good>Evil.

So when Putin carpet bombs Aleppo all he has to do is formulate how this action ultimately cuts the civil war short, keeps a (relatively) benevolent dictator in power, and ultimately saves lives. In other words good>evil from his carpet bombing plan.

This is the same situation and calculation you set up for God when you decided that some evil was OK as long as there was net good.

Your definition is simplistic and is countered by arguments such as can God make 1+ 1 = 3. or Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it.

I think those arguments are simplistic. ;)

As you note, that question has been well addressed by theologians for centuries. Omnipotent has not generally been understood to include being capable of logical or conceptual impossibilities. (Which, itself, might be a wedge to help pry open an answer to the problem of evil.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Thanks. That's what I was thinking but could not express it -- and simple is usually my forte.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

The highlighted is not an argument - it's usually the first clever thought someone has when they sign up for Philosophy 101

lol. Right?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The highlighted is not an argument - it's usually the first clever thought someone has when they sign up for Philosophy 101

Those are the kind of people I wished would take a gap year...

it's usually followed up "Is my mind all there is?"

The argument thats not silly is that if there is a god, he either cannot stop evil, or he chooses not to.

Choosing not to, is widely recognized as immoral and we hold some of these people criminally responsible. (Madatory reporters for example) should we really hold flawed people to a higher standard than a supposedly perfect god?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

What's a little funny is your notion that if God exists, we have any business holding the Supreme Being to a "higher" standard.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Shouldnt it be?

Its not a foreign concept. We do this in society all the time. In the criminal justice system, we hold the actions of more intelligent people to a higher standard than we do to people who are of low intelligence.

You always dismiss the idea that we cant hold god to any standard but you have never given an argument as to why. If you want to argue that we cant judge god, then you have absolutely zero justification to say he is good.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

You always dismiss the idea that we cant hold god to any standard but you have never given an argument as to why.

Because I find it self evident. If a Supreme Being exists, that being is itself the standard.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Then are you against mandatory reporting laws? Because in those, we are holding people to a higher standard than god.

A supreme being does not equate to perfect being nor does it abdicate it of responsibility.

Lets take your idea into a smaller closed system to see if it holds up.... imagine an island inhabited by a diverse range of beings. One is clearly superior to the others in every way. Are the others not alllowed to judge or find fault with the superior one since it is the standard?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Lets take your idea into a smaller closed system to see if it holds up

Actually, let's not, because that's not in any way analogous to what I'm talking about when I reference a supreme being. You seem to be under the impression that I'm talking about a being that is essentially just like us, only more- bigger, stronger, smarter, maybe with magical powers or something. What I'm talking about is a being who is the author and well spring of all reality. It makes no more sense to find fault with a being like that than it does to talk about square circles.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Let us make man in our image"



Thats complete nonsense. If this were true, it would be illogical for you to conclude that child rape is anything other than glorious. Since, this god was the wellspring of child rape. Or do you find child rape abhorrent? If you do, you may want to take that up with the author who invented it and watches silently as it happens.

If I were the author of reality, I would do without child rape. It would be an improvement if it wasnt invented by your god, dont you think?


Eta: intercessory prayer is a tacit acknowledgement that god can do better

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Free choice doesn't remove the consequences of our behavior. As you noted it says the people were acting wicked.

Genesis 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

If I ask my wife if she'd rather have sushi or go to the hole in the wall Mexican place (which is awesome) I know she'll choose sushi. That doesn't mean she doesn't have free will, it means I know her so well I know what she'll choose. Pair that idea with a God who created the universe and everyone in it. If God did all that he's very clearly infinitely superior to us so why couldn't he know what choices we'd make?

Setting aside the free will/determinism debate and simply granting that free will exists...

Demanding action under threat of violence is not a demonstration of free will for the victim. This is the system that the christian god set up.. "if you dont love me then youre going to burn"

Free will would be "you can choose to love me or not and i will not torture you either way"

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Then you not free to make any other choice...hence 50's point.

God cannot know what you will choose if you are actually free to make another choice. If you have comoletely free will, it would be impossible for god to know the outcome before hand.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I wouldn't say we should hold it to a higher standard. I would ask whether it was worthy of worship. Just because something can fuck you right the hell up (literally) does not mean it should be worshiped.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Bt higher standard, i mean a higher standard than believers usually do. I mean raise it to the standard in which we hold eachother.

I also agree with your point but would add, worship is useless.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I would ask whether it was worthy of worship.

Again, I have to wonder what makes you capable of judging such a being worthy or unworthy.



Just because something can fuck you right the hell up (literally) does not mean it should be worshiped.

No, that's true. Of course, I didn't make that argument.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I feel that I have to clarify this. This notion of Hell as a place of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is a relatively recent theological evolution and is definitely not universally held amongst Christians. I'll set aside the lack of lived belief I mentioned in an earlier post, but while many people "believe" in ECT, many others believe in Hell as something completely different (temporary, for example, though there are others), many others believe that it doesn't exist. ECT has been a great means of psychologically controlling people, though. I don't have time to get into it right now, but as far as I'm concerned ECT is highly problematic theology and full of holes and it's unfortunately done nothing to lead people into living a more full, fulfilled life.

I only mention this because with a statement like "the christian god" there's an implied understanding that this is the belief, when it's only a belief and I want it to be clear that there are many of us who don't buy the westernized ECT belief...not to be combative with you!