Is there a God?

[Neanderthaland]

Far be it from me to invoke Godwin's Law, but it would seem to me that if somebody DOESN'T consider what Hitler did to be wrong, that speaks more about them than it does about Hitler.

But God didn't do that.

But God did invent all kinds of natural evil (parasites and such) that have and continue to inflict an unbelievable level of suffering to no real benefit of anything (except the parasite.)

That didn't have to happen, and humanity didn't make it happen. So there's no deflecting it.

[Tarsonis]

No? If I can convince everyone into going along with my ideas through showing their superiority, I have not needed any power at all.
The same holds for group environments where people consent to listen to the authority of another, but force need not be involved. Experience is typically a more relevant factor in those sort of situations.

That's still power.

This.

[Kiu Ghesik]

But God didn't do that.

But God did invent all kinds of natural evil (parasites and such) that have and continue to inflict an unbelievable level of suffering to no real benefit of anything (except the parasite.)

That didn't have to happen, and humanity didn't make it happen. So there's no deflecting it.

Is a parasite evil?

[Godular]

When speaking about your god, that's pretty much the best you CAN do.

Any conversation about the nature of God's authority necessarily needs to assume of a matter of course that God exists. Appealing to "Well God doesn't exist so there" is basically the atheist form of "I don't have a counter argument so I'm gonna take my ball and go home."

And you yammered about other people adding nothing to the conversation.

UMN brought it up, I simply expanded upon it. If nothing else, I was challenging his efforts to use that line as an excuse for anything.

[Thermodolia]

So Authority doesn't drive from the consent of the masses, it derives from power.

No? If I can convince everyone into going along with my ideas through showing their superiority, I have not needed any power at all.
The same holds for group environments where people consent to listen to the authority of another, but force need not be involved. Experience is typically a more relevant factor in those sort of situations.

Having power doesn’t require force

[Neanderthaland]

You keep talking about this supreme authority as though it actually exists. But it doesn't. You've given no reason to take this seriously.

Since the topic of the thread is, "should this idea be taken seriously?" It's pretty fucking relevant.

It does exist irrelevant of your rejection. We were discussing the nature of God's authority and the morality of an omnipotent being. If you don't want to engage in that, then move along. Appealing to "well God doesn't exist so there" in such a discussion is the same as pulling the ejection lever. Toodles.

I did engage in that. I can do both at the same time.

I pointed out that creators have a responsibility to their creation. And if that applies to humans, it applies to Gods.

[Kowani]

No? If I can convince everyone into going along with my ideas through showing their superiority, I have not needed any power at all.
The same holds for group environments where people consent to listen to the authority of another, but force need not be involved. Experience is typically a more relevant factor in those sort of situations.

That's still power.

It might be helpful if we defined power.


...Thinking back on it, we should've done that first.

[Tarsonis]

Any conversation about the nature of God's authority necessarily needs to assume of a matter of course that God exists. Appealing to "Well God doesn't exist so there" is basically the atheist form of "I don't have a counter argument so I'm gonna take my ball and go home."

And you yammered about other people adding nothing to the conversation.

UMN brought it up, I simply expanded upon it. If nothing else, I was challenging his efforts to use that line as an excuse for anything.

You keep using that word, I do not believe it means what you think it means.

[Kiu Ghesik]

It does exist irrelevant of your rejection. We were discussing the nature of God's authority and the morality of an omnipotent being. If you don't want to engage in that, then move along. Appealing to "well God doesn't exist so there" in such a discussion is the same as pulling the ejection lever. Toodles.

I did engage in that. I can do both at the same time.

I pointed out that creators have a responsibility to their creation. And if that applies to humans, it applies to Gods.

Why do creators have a responsibility to a creation? Do creators have a responsibility to their creation?

[Punished UMN]

Any conversation about the nature of God's authority necessarily needs to assume of a matter of course that God exists. Appealing to "Well God doesn't exist so there" is basically the atheist form of "I don't have a counter argument so I'm gonna take my ball and go home."

And you yammered about other people adding nothing to the conversation.

UMN brought it up, I simply expanded upon it. If nothing else, I was challenging his efforts to use that line as an excuse for anything.

It's not an excuse, it's a hypothetical that is being used for the sake of arguing about morality.

[Neanderthaland]

But God did invent all kinds of natural evil (parasites and such) that have and continue to inflict an unbelievable level of suffering to no real benefit of anything (except the parasite.)

That didn't have to happen, and humanity didn't make it happen. So there's no deflecting it.

Is a parasite evil?

No. Most parasites don't have brains.

Creating a parasite would be evil though. You're introducing and perpetuating a cycle of suffering that didn't exist previously. It's a sadistic thing to do. And sadism is evil.

[Godular]

And you yammered about other people adding nothing to the conversation.

UMN brought it up, I simply expanded upon it. If nothing else, I was challenging his efforts to use that line as an excuse for anything.

You keep using that word, I do not believe it means what you think it means.

That's rich.

[Punished UMN]

That's still power.

It might be helpful if we defined power.


...Thinking back on it, we should've done that first.

Power is the ability to make things happen or to make other people make things happen.

[Kiu Ghesik]

Is a parasite evil?

No. Most parasites don't have brains.

Creating a parasite would be evil though. You're introducing and perpetuating a cycle of suffering that didn't exist previously. It's a sadistic thing to do. And sadism is evil.

So, would a god that created the mechanism of evolution that led to that parasite's creation be evil?

[Tarsonis]

It does exist irrelevant of your rejection. We were discussing the nature of God's authority and the morality of an omnipotent being. If you don't want to engage in that, then move along. Appealing to "well God doesn't exist so there" in such a discussion is the same as pulling the ejection lever. Toodles.

I did engage in that. I can do both at the same time.

I pointed out that creators have a responsibility to their creation. And if that applies to humans, it applies to Gods.

But again, you appeal to epicurean models of morality that dictate "pleasure good/ pain evil." and theses are not mandative.

[Tarsonis]

You keep using that word, I do not believe it means what you think it means.

That's rich.

Again you have no room to talk.

[Neanderthaland]

I did engage in that. I can do both at the same time.

I pointed out that creators have a responsibility to their creation. And if that applies to humans, it applies to Gods.

Why do creators have a responsibility to a creation? Do creators have a responsibility to their creation?

In reverse order:
Yes

For the same reason parents have a responsibility to their children. You have introduced a sapient being into the universe. Something with the capacity of joy and suffering. To neglect that responsibility is to inflict suffering, and is a sadistic and immoral act. See: Mary Shelley

[Tarsonis]

Is a parasite evil?

No. Most parasites don't have brains.

Creating a parasite would be evil though. You're introducing and perpetuating a cycle of suffering that didn't exist previously. It's a sadistic thing to do. And sadism is evil.

Sadism implies deriving pleasure from said pain.

[Kowani]

It might be helpful if we defined power.


...Thinking back on it, we should've done that first.

Power is the ability to make things happen or to make other people make things happen.

I suppose that's a fair definition, yes.

[Tarsonis]

Why do creators have a responsibility to a creation? Do creators have a responsibility to their creation?

In reverse order:
Yes

For the same reason parents have a responsibility to their children. You have introduced a sapient being into the universe. Something with the capacity of joy and suffering. To neglect that responsibility is to inflict suffering, and is a sadistic and immoral act. See: Mary Shelley

So the parent must make every effort to ensure their creation never feels pain? or has any negative experience?

[Kiu Ghesik]

Why do creators have a responsibility to a creation? Do creators have a responsibility to their creation?

In reverse order:
Yes

For the same reason parents have a responsibility to their children. You have introduced a sapient being into the universe. Something with the capacity of joy and suffering. To neglect that responsibility is to inflict suffering, and is a sadistic and immoral act. See: Mary Shelley

I suppose that logic is sound, if you accept that axiom about your creation.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Let's not go back to the dark days of La Xinga here.

Anyways, Tarsonis, can you give a proper response to my argument:


God, according to you, is omniscient and omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Even if there are forces operating independent of him, he is responsible since as an omnipotent being, he can control these forces and as an omniscient being he ought to be able to judge whether an action is good or evil. Permitting evil to occur through your own informed negligence, when you have the power to stop it, makes you evil. That contradicts the principle of omnibenevolence.

[Tarsonis]

Power is the ability to make things happen or to make other people make things happen.

I suppose that's a fair definition, yes.

And since God can move everything, and cannot Himself be moved, that makes his power supreme, does it not?

[Neanderthaland]

I did engage in that. I can do both at the same time.

I pointed out that creators have a responsibility to their creation. And if that applies to humans, it applies to Gods.

But again, you appeal to epicurean models of morality that dictate "pleasure good/ pain evil." and theses are not mandative.

I never said such a thing.
I said that there is suffering that does not impact free will, and so free will does not excuse suffering.
And I said to needlessly inflict suffering is a sadistic and immoral act.

If you want a moral mandate, I will say that Sadism is very nearly the definition of evil.

[Tarsonis]

Let's not go back to the dark days of La Xinga here.

Anyways, Tarsonis, can you give a proper response to my argument:


God, according to you, is omniscient and omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Even if there are forces operating independent of him, he is responsible since as an omnipotent being, he can control these forces and as an omniscient being he ought to be able to judge whether an action is good or evil. Permitting evil to occur through your own informed negligence, when you have the power to stop it, makes you evil. That contradicts the principle of omnibenevolence.

I gave a proper respone: Nope.