Tips please?

Gold Member
Dante626's picture
Posts: 47
Joined: 2006-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Tips please?

Hey there guys, I was recently in a discussion with a theist online, and I was told it would be a good idea to post the transcript here when I was asking for tips in the stickam room for some feedback. I couldn't decide whether to post it here or in the debate forums, but since I'm not actually looking for a debate, I'm posting it here. Move it whereever it fits better.

Anyways, I only modified it by removing the time signitures, changing his name to Theist (my name is Shriven626 in the chat, if you couldn't tell), and deleting the intro part where we talk about Transformers. Sticking out tongue So here it is, I hope for some good feedback and criticism.



Theist: ok, so step 1: do you percieve any logic problems with the existence of a God that we need to cover, or is it just a matter of providing evidence?

Shriven626: Depends on the type of god we are talking about

Theist: right now just the judeo-christian God (quality wise), Bible excluded

Shriven626: well, sure

Shriven626: these are the pretty common ones, such as the problem of evil

Shriven626: but instead of why does he allow them to happen, why did he knowingly create a system that would allow these things to happen

Shriven626: because the Judeo-Christian god is, by definition, supposed to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent

Theist: right

Shriven626: and if he functions in ways that humans supposedly cannot fathom, then there is no reason why he could not create humans with freewill, and still make sure that there is no suffering, etc. etc.

Shriven626: just because we cannot imagine what that would be like does not mean it would not be possible for an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent god

Shriven626: But, of course, that did not happen, so the omnibenevolence is questionable

Shriven626: or perhaps the omnipotence?

Shriven626: Or the omniscience?

Theist: Assuming you arent going to try and contradict God on what is good and what is evil, the answer (i dont think) is incredibly difficult. Even if God did ordain man to sin... the fact that God is not does sin himself (by God mechanics) relieves Him of responsibility. To us this may sound akward (i.e. if i use a gun to shoot someone, im responsible for what the gun did). In God's case, however, the physics of morality are apparently different. I see God utilizing evil as a means of producing overabounding good. It's what allows good to flourish and express.

Shriven626: I don't agree with that. I think it is another wording of the, knowing how something works takes away it's wonder, argument.

Theist: So if God ordains evil to occur in order to promote good (in the NET effect) the decision to ordain the situation is in fact good.

Theist: i dont follow, what do you mean?

Shriven626: but in the form of the, you wouldn't appreciate light unless there was darkness, form

Shriven626: so, evil needs to be here for good to flourish.

Theist: it's not a matter of "appreciation", its a matter of net effect.

Theist: (hypothetically speaking; this is just way to resolve the apparent contradiction)

Shriven626: Nah, I don't buy it.. If I had a child, he wouldn't need to be sick in order to be healthy most of the time.

Shriven626: Or for health to exist

Theist: I think that's a bad analogy. Good, if it exists, is defined by God

Theist: right or wrong?

Shriven626: I would have to disagree. I have a set standard of right and wrong. God, in general, doesn't seem to have that. He contradicts himself a lot in moral issues.

Shriven626: So if good is defined by simply what God wants to be good at the time, then what is evil now could be good tomorrow

Shriven626: God is the ultimate moral relativist

Theist: He does? I don't see how... you mean in examples where God murders but says "you shall not murder"?

Shriven626: Something along those lines.

Theist: (thats the only one i can think of)

Shriven626: Or he steals, or condones rape, etc. etc.

Shriven626: all things humans know are immoral, not from a deity, but from our own experience and learning

Theist: well, how can God steal?

Theist: (and that condones rape bit is wildly misunderstanding the context)

Shriven626: I meant tells people too, sorry, typo

Shriven626: I'd also have to disagree with that parathetical statement

Shriven626: but anyways, as I was saying

Theist: [also note, we're delving into the Bible which didnt intend to do yet, but we'll go ahead and deal with this real quick]

Shriven626: so good is either arbitrary and based on god's whim, or it is not decided by god, and he just tells us what is good, based on some other objective rule

Shriven626: The Christian god IS the bible, unless you refer to the bible for what god is, you are just making stuff up.

Theist: Do you agree that there are such things as "positionally innappropriate" things? For instance, I would tell you "it's wrong for you to burn my house"... however, would I be a hypocrite if the next day i burned my own house?

Theist: Or is it wrong for a guy to enter a girls bathroom, and vice versa (working under morality as we see it today)

Theist: In the case of God, He can 1. murder whoever He wishes. He owns you. I, however, do not own you. So if i murderered you without God's permission it would be equivalent to burning your house down without your permission.

Shriven626: For the latter, it would be a violation of perceived privacy. It may simply be a conditioning of society, but it is still something that people actually have strong feelings as to the right and wrongness of it

Theist: (i was simply referring to "omniscient, omnipresent, etc.&quotEye-wink

Theist: So you do agree that there are positional good/evil. Meaning, it can be ok for one person to do something, and wrong for another.

Theist: Yes?

Shriven626: I don't really think you gave very good examples of it, so, based on the examples you gave, no

Theist: What about the house example?

Shriven626: becase in the opposite direction, it would be "wrong" for a woman to enter the male bathroom

Shriven626: although I generally don't care one way or the other, but that is because I am more comfortable with myself than other people

Shriven626: as for the house example, without a justifiable reason, it would be wrong for either of us to burn down the other's house

Shriven626: not positional morality, but situational

Theist: (lol, lets not get off topic. By the worlds standards [which is all we can really use by analogy] there are positional morals. Certain things are ok for one person, and not ok for another)

Theist: fine, same thing.

Theist: position is a class of situation.

Theist: right?

Shriven626: it sounds like you are using positional morality as another way of saying privilege

Theist: Also Shriven, i didnt say burn each others house.. I said "is it wrong for me to burn my own house down"

Shriven626: oh, sorry, I missed that part

Theist: clearly its not wrong for me to burn my own house down (and i could come up with 1,000 more examples) but it would be wrong for you to burn my house down

Shriven626: then no, it would not be, as long as you actually owned that house, had no one else depending on that house for suvival (such as a family), and no one else was hurt by the blaze, etc etc

Shriven626: of course, idiotic and immoral are two different things Sticking out tongue

Theist: obviously. But my point is made. If you kill me, you'll have burnt God's house down.. if God kills me, he'll have burnt his own house.

Theist: It's a matter of rights

Shriven626: that assumes god DOES own me

Shriven626: or you, or anyone else

Shriven626: which, of course, assumes god's existence

Theist: Well, you're hypothetically speaking as a theist in order to demonstrate the incoherency of the Christian God.

Shriven626: well, let me put it this way.

Shriven626: back in the times when slavery was prevalent (it is still around today)

Theist: (if i wanted to play that game i could have said earlier "you're saying its wrong for God to do something! ah ha! you believe God exists!"

Shriven626: it would still be immoral for a slave owner to beat his slave, even if he did own the person.

Theist: In reality, you were just taking on a hypothetical situation to demonstrate incoherency. I've defended the coherency.. so my job is accomplished.

Shriven626: And to say that it is not immoral because it is god is just a bit of special pleading.

Theist: Before I continue, do you understand what im saying about taking on hypothetical situations?

Shriven626: I understand that, I was just saying that in order for that to really even be relavent in any meaningful way, god would actually have to exist

Shriven626: I wasn't saying, "whoa, hey now, I am not admitting god exists"

Theist: Thats very obvious. The reason you are bringing this up is because if you can demonstrate that God contradicts himself in some way, then that would prove that He doesnt exist after all (so i wouldnt need to waste my time trying to prove He exists because we would have already proven His existence is impossible)

Shriven626: agreed, but I don't think you have demonstrated a non-contradiction. So far it's just boiled down to god is exempt from these contradictiosn

Shriven626: unless there is some powerhouse argument that I'm not aware of coming Smiling

Theist: Ok, I just want to make sure you dont respond again with "but you'd have to prove God exists" because I dont have to prove God exists in order to defend God's internal consistency

Theist: do you agree?

Shriven626: only in so far as unicorns don't have to exist for us to talk about them

Theist: (there is Smiling )

Theist: so yes, you do agree.

Theist: ?

Shriven626: anyways, as I was saying, I'm sure we could both agree that, beyond the fact that slavery itself is immoral, beating your slave would also be immoral, regardless of whether or not you owned the slave

Theist: I just want to make sure you dont respond again with "but you'd have to prove God exists" because I dont have to prove God exists in order to defend God's internal consistency [it's Gods' internal consistency you are attacking after all, in order to preclude any need to provide evidence for his actuality].

Shriven626: I said I did agree. But again, once we determined what a unicorn was, we would have to actually go out and find a unicorn

Theist: ok perfect

Theist: now you bring up slaves. Under the God hypothesis which we are hypothetically speaking from, (and as the Bible says clearly in direct reference to slaves) a slave owner does not really own that slave.

Shriven626: that wasn't my point

Theist: Therefore, it is still wrong for the slave"owner" to beat that slave, because that's really God's slave

Shriven626: this is just special pleading again

Theist: is it special pleading to say i can burn my house but you cant burn it?

Theist: is that special pleading?

Shriven626: in a way, yes, if that house were in any way alive.

Theist: huh?

Theist: why does being alive have to do with it

Shriven626: because I simply do not hold to the idea that a living creature can truly be owned

Shriven626: even an animal

Shriven626: or a child.

Shriven626: no matter how powerful the "owner" is

Theist: under the hypothetical Christian-God scenario we are speaking from, it is possible. So if you're going to attack the coherency of my position, you need to take on my position.

Shriven626: parent's create a child, but they do not own that child

Theist: Under Christian theism, God would literally own you, and me, and every inanimate object. So God has full rights to do with them what He wills.

Shriven626: that is not true at all. I don't need to be a young-earth creationist to argue against young-earth creationism

Shriven626: I can simply so, no, you are wrong about this. In my opinion, and we can see this in the march of human history, humans have relinqueshed control, slowly, over other living things.

Shriven626: Less so over animals, but as can be seen in the animal rights push, that is happening as well

Theist: Shriven, im not saying you need to be a young-earth creationist (or a theist in this case), but you are speaking hypothetically.

Shriven626: and even over plants

Theist: Do you know what hypothetically means?

Theist: (thats not an insulte, im really asking)

Shriven626: Yes, I know what hypothetically. But as far as I'm concerned, young-earth creationism is all hypothetical too, because it is not backed up by evidence, the "fact" of that creationism does not exist, so any talk of it would be hypothetical

Theist: ok, it seems you dont know what hypothetically means because you are using the word incorrectly

Shriven626: I know what hypothetically means.

Theist: Actually, i take that back - you said "as far as im concerned"

Shriven626: let me put it this way, since perhaps young-earth creationism is still a bit too concrete.

Theist: When we speak hypothetically, we take on the position for a moment to demonstrate the inconsistency. We say "IF God exists... (taking on the position hypothetically) THEN this woudl be true. But this cannot be true, therefore God's existence demands a contradiction. Reality has no contradictions. Therefore God is false"

Theist: does that make sense

Shriven626: I do not necassarily need to take on the stance of buddhism to critique it

Theist: Do you agree that this is what you are doing in the case of your above morality system?

Theist: system = argument

Theist: sorry.

Shriven626: In, part, however, even when you take that position on hypothetically, that does not rule out external evidences or facts.

Theist: "in part"? Who said it would rule out facts?

Shriven626: You said I had to argue from that position. Perhaps you just worded it wrong.

Theist: Just so I can make sure we are on the same page, can you say "Yes, that is the formulation of argument i am using to demonsrate God's inconsistency and therefore inaccuracy".

Theist: Ok, lets start from the top. Is it wrong to murder? If so, why?

Shriven626: It's wrong to murder because I would not want that done to me, for one, and two, because if it were okay to murder, a stable civilization would not arise

Theist: 1. who says "what i want done" is equivalent to good. 2. who says a stable civilization is good?

Shriven626: right and wrong are not good and evil.

Theist: in our discussion they are.

Shriven626: I don't agree that good and evil are existant, in any way beyond an emotional description of an event or outcome

Theist: Perfect, so at least your a consistent atheist. So now let me ask you.. if you dont believe evil is existent, how can there be a "problem of evil"?

Shriven626: As I said, it is a description of certain events or outcomes. You are just playing semantics with that line of argument. The problem of evil is the problem of suffering, loss, etc.

Shriven626: Which are "evil" because the decrease the chance of individual, group, and race survival

Theist: Who says such things are evil? you said evil didnt exist

Shriven626: *because they...

Theist: how is that a problem then?

Shriven626: you're absolutley right, hence the "" around evil

Theist: So basically, your argument against God isnt an argument because evil doesnt really exist. Therefore it's not a problem.

Shriven626: Simple. If evil is just another descriptor for things harmful, or negative

Shriven626: and good is a descriptor for things beneficial, positive

Shriven626: and god is omnibenevolent, as well as omniscient and omnipotent, then the same exact problem exists

Theist: God is omnibenevolent.. and how can you say otherwise? You admit that no evil exists.

Theist: (no true evil)

Shriven626: you are missing the entire point. If evil is just ANOTHER word for suffering and all the other things I described, evil still exists, and evil is still just as true

Shriven626: it is just not what you think of as evil

Shriven626: and so conversely, if good is just ANOTHER word for beneficial, positive events and outcomes, then it exists just ast much as it did before, and just as truely

Theist: Since when did God claim not to allow suffering? If God exists and is omnibenevolent, who are you to say that this means suffering wouldnt exist. You are making up your own definition of Evil and applying it to God

Theist: And saying "God allows for what I call evil therefore God allows evil"

Shriven626: you say, what I call Good and Evil are not allowed for by god, therefore god does not allow evil

Shriven626: well, what I call evil is not allowed by god.

Theist: Where in the Bible does God say suffering is evil and He would not allow it?

Theist: You might as well say "bananas are evil"

Theist: you're just making it up.

Shriven626: since when were we talking about the bible? You explicitly stated that you wanted to avoid it

Theist: You said the two were connected so we had to pursue it.

Shriven626: we started to get into it, and then we backed off.

Theist: Ok look, this is your argument.

Theist: 1. Suffering is evil

2. Suffering exists

3. God is omnibenevolent

4. Therefore God would not allow Suffering

Theist: right or wrong?

Shriven626: not at all

Shriven626: god can be all good, but if he lacks that capacity to stop evil, then there is no contradiction

Shriven626: and even less of one if he does not know of the evil to begin with

Theist: fine, change #3 to "God is omnibenevolent/omnipotent"

Theist: and repeat it

Theist: (i assumed it was a given)

Theist: 1. Suffering is evil

2. Suffering exists

3. God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent

4. Therefore God would not allow Suffering

Shriven626: Without the intricacies, but yeah.

Theist: Your ENTIRE argument breaks down if someone doesnt take on your erroneous definition of evil.

Theist: Anyone can put whatever they want in for #1

Shriven626: whose to say my definition is erroneous and yours is not

Shriven626: ?

Theist: I could say 1. "Bananas are evil."

Theist: And prove God doesnt exist by showing you a banana

Theist: couldnt i?

Theist: say "yes" or "no"

Shriven626: you still haven't demonstrated why my definition of evil and good is erroneous

Theist: ok, you beg the question that suffering is evil in order to prove God doesnt exist, just as i beg the question in saying a banana is evil

Theist: right or wrong?

Shriven626: not if I disagree that there is truely a universal moral code

Theist: If thats true then you, (as a consistent atheist) agree that good and evil dont really exist.

Theist: (i.e. a true universal moral code)

Shriven626: once again, I already stated that.

Theist: Then lets rephrase the argument

Theist: 1. Evil doesnt really exist

2. God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent

3. Therefore God would not allow Suffering

Shriven626: I said that good and evil were just emotional descriptors for certain types of events and outcomes

Theist: sorry let me rephrase

Theist: 1. Evil doesnt exist

3. God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent

4. Therefore God would not Evil.

Theist: And according to you this is accomplished, since evil doesnt exist

Shriven626: god would not evil? Is that a typo?

Theist: yes "God would not allow evil"

Shriven626: okay

Shriven626: You are missing the entire point, and also arguing from a presupposition that god exists. This isn't bad logic on my part to bring this up again, because this will be an obstacle throughout this entire converstation.

Theist: let me help you out here, the only way this Problem of Evil is going to work is if you say

1. Christianity believs/admist that evil exists (evil as they define it)

2. The Christian God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent

3. Therefore God would not allow evil as Christianity defines it.

4. Since it does exist, God must not.

Shriven626: We do not see evil as defined by any universal moral code, even throughout history

Shriven626: beyond the way that I described it

Theist: Now according to that 1-4, I have a contradiction/problem in my paradigm, therefore i must reject/resolve it

Theist: but right now, you are given me no problem at all.

Shriven626: so, in so far as that goes, evil exists

Theist: would you like to take on my 1-4 argument?

Theist: Because yours doesnt work.

Shriven626: this isn't going to get much farther. You reject my argument simply because it does not fit with yours. You say, that is not how I define evil, therefore I can ignore it and state that your argument does not work

Shriven626: However, I do not have the same presuppositions as you, so even if I TAKE ON your presuppositions, that will not remove the problems I see with your concepts

Shriven626: I'm sure your beliefs are internally consistent with themselves, but they do not explain the world that we observe.


1. Suffering is evil

2. Suffering exists

3. God is omnibenevolent [doesnt allow suffering] and omnipotent

4. Therefore God would not allow Suffering

This is all you've proven. You've proven that a God who hates suffering is obviously not omnipotent. I can easily dismiss your argument by saying "what if God does allow suffering, what if He doesnt think suffering is evil". Then your argument is refuted.

Shriven626: To the christian morality, homosexuality is EVIL, it is immoral. However, that is not what we see in life.

Theist: If i take away #1 of your 1-4, the rest of the argument breaks down.

Shriven626: exactly, but that is really the only kind of evil that exists in any substantial way

Shriven626: as I've already said, the christian concepts of good and evil, beyond that basic ones that everyone has, perhaps through genetics or cultural memes, do not exist

Theist: Shriven, you are making up your own definition of evil. If you want to make up your own definition of evil and then say "look this psuedo-evil exists, and God doesnt allow it! but here it is!" what can I do? You've made up your own God. Im not interested in defending your false rendition of God

Theist: You havent disproven the Judeo-Christian God, you've disproven some imaginary God you made up.

Shriven626: well, that isn't true at all. By your reasoning, I've made up my own good and evil

Shriven626: not my own god

Theist: You've made up a God who would not allow suffering

Theist: right or wrong?

Shriven626: wrong, god is omnibenevolent, woudln't allow evil if he could stop it. I called suffering evil. so I made up a defintion of evil

Shriven626: of course I didn't, because as I've already said, and you've ignored, that is the only kind of evil that really exists in any manifest way

Theist: right, so why should i care about your argument? I agree that God is omnibenevolent, but since I dont agree with your definition of evil then your argument poses no threat to me or Christianity.

Theist: Congratulations, you've refuted a false God.

Theist: Bananas also exist.

Shriven626: once again, you're taking on a presupposition, which is not exaclty the best place to begin this argument

Theist: Bananas exist too.

Theist: I say bananas are evil

Shriven626: see, I don't BELIEVE in the Judeo-Christian god. To me, he is also false. You CLAIM he exists, but if he were to exist, he would exist in THIS world, and face the problems of existence in THIS world.

Theist: Shriven, remember, this whole reason we're doing this is because im trying to find if you see any logical reason that the Judeo-Christian God (the God I am defending) could not exist.

Shriven626: Not in the hypothetical world that he exists in.

Theist: You've went on some tangent and explained why some fake God cant exist

Theist: as if it applies to our discussion.

Shriven626: you miss the point, The Judeo-Christian god is fake, for all practical purposes in my life. Intellectualy, sure, we can never disprove him 100%

Theist: *listening

Shriven626: but as I've stated, and you've ignored, if you claim he exists, then he faces the problems any OTHER omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient being would in order for it to exist

Theist: (tell me when you're down, im listening carefully)

Theist: done*

Theist: (im wondering what problem he faces, if you want to touch on that)

Shriven626: simply redefining what I call evil will not make him exist any more, because that is not what I call evil, as from what I observe in the world, that is the only thing that we could even begin to call evil in any universal sense. The judeo-christian morality is bunk, it does not work, whit the definitions of good and evil, again, beyond the "murder is bad, etc.", not existing.

Shriven626: The Judeo-Christian morality states that such things as homosexuality is evil

Shriven626: but if I do not agree that things like that are evil, than telling me they are over and over again will not change anything

Shriven626: so, again, in order for the judeo-christian god to exist, there has to be something about him that takes away the problem of evil, by my defintion of evil. Oh, and by the way, I am looking at a section on the problem of evil in a "philosophy of religion" text book, and my definition of evil is very much the defintion being used in it.

Theist: (*still listening)

Shriven626: So, by my defintion of evil, as well as the collaborating definition by other sources, evil exists. The judeo-christian god is supposdely omni-benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If he is all three of those things, evil should NOT exist. Evil can be explained if God is not omnibenovlent, and he just does not care, if he is not omniscient, and just does not know, or if he is omnipotent, and is not able to do anything about it.

Shriven626: *or if he is not omnipotent...

Shriven626: I told you yesterday that I am not a presuppositionalist, so arguing from that standpoint is not going to get us anywhere

Theist: (*still listening, waiting for the "ok" to respond)

Shriven626: lol, ok

Theist: Ok, allow me to speak as much as you did?

[12:32] Shriven626: that's fine, I only continued because you didn't interject

[12:36] Theist: The Christian God is allegedly omnibenevolent. But is it the judeo-christian defintion of "omnibenevolence", or is it the journal of philosophy's definition of omnibenevolence? Which one is the judeo-christian God claiming to be? The judeo-christian God never claimed to be omnibenevolent according to the journal of philosophies defintion. The Christian God claimed to be omnibenevolent according to the Bibles definition (which is not suffering). So to say that the judeo-christian God cannot exist because if He did He would stop suffering must be false. Do you see why your suffering argument is pointless for proving that the judeo-christian God does not exist? He never claimed not to allow suffering.

The only argument you can bring up against the judeo-christian God is the fact that evil as defined by the judeo-christian God does exist (i.e. sin does exist). So if God is omnibenevolent, why does evil (sin) exist? This is the question I started answering above (and is actually relevant). Does that all make sense?

Shriven626: That certainl makes sense, although you have to refer to the bible (something you did not want to do) in order for that to makes sense.

Theist: (listening till you say "ok"*)

Shriven626: However, there is still a problem of evil, not just as it exists, but as the potential it had to not exist before God began the creation.

Shriven626: God knew EVERYTHING that would EVER happen, and had the capability to create things in a different way to avoid any specific eventuality.

Theist: (which "evil", the judeo-christian God's definition or the journal of philosophies?)

Shriven626: the biblical version

Shriven626: God KNEW that Adam and Eve would eat the apple, before even that first day of creation, and still he created them, knowing exactly what they would do, and what it would result in. God wanted it to happen.

Shriven626: because, of course, everything moves according to his will

Theist: (*still listening, im very familiar with this argument)

Shriven626: not only that, but Adam and Eve didn't even know that eating the apple would be wrong, seeing as how they lacked the knowledge of good and evil. All they knew was that God told them not to eat it, but they did not have the knowledge to know that disobeying god would be immoral, or evil, or wrong.

[12:43] Shriven626: it would be like telling a child not to touch a hot stove. Do you get angry at the child for touching the hot stove? The child did not truely know the consequences of touching the stove, seeing as how, most likey, it had never been burned before, and therefore lacked any kind of knowledge as to the repercussions of disobeying.

[12:44] Theist: (*still listening)

[12:44] Shriven626: so far there is both a problem of evil from the presuppositionalist point of view, and the generalist point of view.

[12:44] Shriven626: anyways, I'll brb, so go ahead

[12:48] Theist: 1. Suppose that the Bible did not exist. If the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God was under question, one could not say "evil exists, therefore an omnibenevolent/potent God cannot exist" because one would first have to define what is truly evil. Since no such definition actually exists, it's impossible to say "evil exists therefore an omnibenevolent God cannot exist". The only way this line of reasoing would work is if you stated beforehand what is meant by omnibenevolence.

2. [copy/past from before, in response to your Adam/Eve argument] "Even if God did ordain man to sin... the fact that God is not does sin himself (by God mechanics) relieves Him of responsibility. To us this may sound akward (i.e. if i use a gun to shoot someone, im responsible for what the gun did). In God's case, however, the physics of morality are apparently different. I see God utilizing evil as a means of producing overabounding good. It's what allows good to flourish and express." This does not mean evil is necessary for good, rather that ordaining evil is a viable means for ultlimately bringing about good.

So #1 is irrelevant to our discusssion unless we can agree on "omnibenevolence" and #2 is established, by noting that there is no contradiction in the judeo-christian God's concept of evil and His subsequent actions.

Theist: (i'll brb myself)

Shriven626: that last argument is absurd, for the very simply reason that sin is disobediance to god. It is no feat at all for god to be without sin therefore.

Shriven626: *therefore, it is not feat...

Shriven626: If there is no objective moral code, than the title of omnibenevolence is, as you state, meaningless. This is not an argument against a person who readily admits that there is no truly defnitive moral code.

Theist: (*listening, thats a good objection and I have an answer)

Shriven626: I'm done, since neither of those points in any way settle the problem

Theist: Are you familiar with the divine command theory?

Theist: or Eutheyphro's dilemma

Shriven626: probably by a different name

Theist: "Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?"

Shriven626: that's what I was getting at early, but was never able to finish

Theist: Which one do you think judeo-chrisianity teaches?

Shriven626: I don't think it resolves the issue one way or the other

Shriven626: either good is god's whim, and therefore relativistic, or it is not, and transcends god

Theist: I would propose that the laws of morality, much like logic, are part of God's nature (in a quasi-sense, God's arm or leg). God cannot act illogically (he cannot create a sqaure circle) nor can he do evil. This does not mean that God cannot murder (since that is not evil for him to do, as according to JudChrist He has the right). At the same time, God cannot "lie" since that is not a positionally relevant evil.

Shriven626: that doesn't really solve anything, in fact, all it does is say, this problem does not apply to god because he is special

Shriven626: and why can't god do illogical things? I've heard this argument before, and it tries to claim that omnipotent means all powerful within logic, which it does not.

Theist: Well, to say there is a problem begs the question. Under my view God is special [just like the house owner], but remember, i still say He cannot lie. With this in mind, and the "gun" answer provided above. There is no internal contradicting in my view. So provided there are no other problems with my view, i can move on to provide evidence for believing that my view is, in fact, the case.

Theist: (Then God isn't omnipotent, if you want to use that definition.)

Shriven626: then he is not the judeo-christian god.

Shriven626: because the judeo-christian god IS omnipotent

Theist: Yes He is, the judeo-christian God cannot do many things (the Bible is very clear on that).

Shriven626: you are the one that has created a "false" god

Theist: He is subject to His own nature.

Shriven626: and the bible is very clear that he CAN do everything as well.

Shriven626: the bible contradicts itself many times, even on the nature of god.

Theist: anyways, i have to head out

Theist: im supposed to meet them in 30 minutes

Shriven626: well, have fun.

Theist: thx, ttyl