CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The Christian god qualifies as a maximal being. (Attn: Lolzors)
I've already posted a debate about the ontological argument not being sound, now I would like to look at the Christian god, and discuss whether or not he qualifies as the maximal being that the ontological argument tries to demonstrate. Maximal just means the highest that can be realized, nothing more.
For this debate, use the following definition for a maximal being:
A maximal being is maximal in all attributes, non-contradictory, and if it exists it would exist in all possible worlds.
The God of the Bible is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. Sub categories branch off from those three into other aspects. The God of the Bible is all three of these things.
You can't say he's omnibenevolent after what was done to Job. You can't say he is omnibenevolent after sending even one person to hell. You also can't use your "biblically speaking excuse" because the definition, the English one, does not allow it. An omnibenevolent person wouldn't do those things.
His will, not objective morality. Thus he is not acting in accordance to what would be good for all human kind, he's acting in accordance of what he thinks is right, and I hate to tell you of all people but God is not right. Sending anyone to hell, or letting anyone go to hell, is not omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent person is something we call an enabler. She sees the drug addict suffering from his addiction, and she makes up excuses to let the drug addict continue, and she might supply him with stuff to stay as safe as possible so he won't be out there getting diseased, but still unable to stop his drug addiction. In other words, if God was truly omnibenevolent he would baby society, and would not stand by while suffering happened, regardless of freewill. So I repeat, God is not omnibenevolent.
Omnibenevolent doesn't mean treating every person in way that's good but rather it means everything he does is good. If God did exist, everything he did would be, good by definition. If God did something and we perceived it to be bad, we would be mistaken.
I don't think he ever comments on what is good and bad for him to do. Whats moral for a God, who can exercise perfect judgement, is not good for a human. Maybe you'll have to give an example for me understand.
Whats moral for a God, who can exercise perfect judgement, is not good for a human.
My question is how you know he can exercise perfect Judgement, when the evidence has shown that he can't. That's like a parent that says I'm never wrong, but you see examples of them being wrong.
Maybe you'll have to give an example for me understand.
Job. He bet a guy's life on a promise to the devil that he would love him no matter what. He killed his family, his servants, his livestock, and utterly destroyed this guy's life, for more or less, a bet. You say God has perfect Judgement, but you can prove against it, then you don't question it. I asked ultimately why.
See that's the "Because the Bible says so" argument, and it's wrong. Yes I know, saying "It's wrong" is a bad arguing style but sometime a duck needs to be called a duck. What about God's nature says he's omnibenevolent? Not the way he treats people. You aren't questioning your religion, you're reading it off a script and you go with it, regardless of what it says. I'm not saying to turn your back on God, I'm not even calling him evil right now, I'm just saying, keep an open mind, and call out a fault when one is present, if it needs to be. You are in love with God, and his good book is like a story he sent to you for editing, and you decided not to hurt his feelings by not editing any of it and saying that it's perfect, but in the end you're hurting one another. Stop hurting God, admit when he has made a mistake.
God has not made a mistake. As I have said, there is no such thing as objective morality if there is no God. Therefore, the only way to achieve omni-benevolence is to have an objective morality. Therefore, you can either say that God is morally perfect or say that you do not prefer God's morality; you cannot, though, say that He is evil.
Also, after re-reading your post before over and over again, I am appalled that you consider an omni-benevolent being as a being who would actually encourage drug addiction and intentionally get more drugs for the addict. That is just sickening.
OH MY GOD!!! I'm outraged with your first sentence and could read no more because it was giving me mental pains. You literally just did what I asked you not to do. You said "God is X because the Bible says so".
Why will you not question him? Hell, why will you not question what is written about him, when it goes against logic?
If you read my post, then you would have recognized that there is nothing in there that mentions the Bible.
Also, I question God; I just have determined that God is true and moral. God does not go against logic. As I say, "Atheism can take you so far but then comes logic."
His nature is the defining point. Objective standards do not change. However, even at that, objective can be changed for that of humans; for our objective standard comes from what God commands, which can change.
Right, but He causes massive destruction, kind of goes against what He is supposed to stand for. His standard is wishy washy. How can that really be a standard?
How is destruction against what He stands for? He stands for two things: love, mercy, grace, and peace to His elect, and hatred (in a personal sense), destruction, pain, and war to His non-elect.
Because whatever God does is just and good. The people will weep and gnash their teeth; however, that doesn't deny that they are guilty of sin and should be punished for it.
I'm still working to construct an argument. Would you please provide me with the Bible verses you believe state the Christian god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent?
Is your position that the Christian god has perfect foresight?
This verse only seems to talk about power, if there isn't a verse that says he has perfect foresight that's okay, I just want to know your position on it.
One last question (hopefully). Does the Christian god have perfect knowledge of the future, or does he have perfect knowledge of the future only when he chooses to use his perfect foresight?
Can he control his perfect foresight, or is it always active?
He always has perfect knowledge. One cannot selectively choose which to know and not know because to choose to not know something would entail knowing about it in the first place.
The Bible is God's Word. He said all of these things through men.
That's Job unto the lord, not the other way around. In other words mere speculation, try again please.
Right before Job says this, God was speaking to him and saying that He was all-knowing and all-powerful. Pretty much God rants about how He is amazing from about chapter 38 to the end of the book with Job intervening every now and then.
Again, people speaking to the lord or of the Lord, still not the Lord declaring it himself.
Yes again, this an Apostle of God saying these things.
How do you know that? How does he know God is love?
The Bible is God's Word. He said all of these things through men.
How do you know that?
Right before Job says this, God was speaking to him and saying that He was all-knowing and all-powerful. Pretty much God rants about how He is amazing from about chapter 38 to the end of the book with Job intervening every now and then.
Where are those quotes?
Yes again, this an Apostle of God saying these things.
I'm an Apostle of the Lord, he told me to tell you you shouldn't worship him. You see how easy that is to fake things, where's your proof that he was speaking of the lord, and wasn't just making it up for whatever reason?
I don't know that the Bible is the Word of God. However, I have found no contradictions in the Bible that was written by multiple men over multiple generations with prophesies that have come true, namely about the Messiah.
Where are those quotes?
Job's response was pretty much summing up what God had been saying to Him for the past few chapters. It is too long to post. As I said, it was a huge rant about how God is all-powerful and all-knowing and great.
I'm an Apostle of the Lord, he told me to tell you you shouldn't worship him. You see how easy that is to fake things, where's your proof that he was speaking of the lord, and wasn't just making it up for whatever reason?
Make a prophesy. All Apostles have the power to do miracles and to predict the future, in a sense of course. That was the test that God set in Deuteronomy 18 for determining if someone truly was from God. John did miraculous things and prophesied.
However, I have found no contradictions in the Bible that was written by multiple men over multiple generations with prophesies that have come true, namely about the Messiah.
Well I'm glad to see that you haven't and have kept your faith strong, for those who have, what's their deal?
Job's response was pretty much summing up what God had been saying to Him for the past few chapters.
So even in the bible, there is no direct quote from God, there is just people relaying what he says. If you really want to teach us the word of the lord, I won't buy it coming from the mouth of anyone but him.
Make a prophesy.
I predict night fall before long.
All Apostles have the power to do miracles and to predict the future, in a sense of course.
If this is the case then why is there not more miracles being done, to impress the masses? I assume you saw one of these miracles, what was done, I'd really like to know.
A lot of the things they thought were miracles back then, are easily explainable with modern science, and it's not totally impossible for someone to have been way ahead of their time (Like Davinci was) and to wow the people of the time with things they never thought possible, and calling it divine magic.
I don't know; however, I believe it to be true and will defend that the Bible is God's Word.
Well I'm glad to see that you haven't and have kept your faith strong, for those who have, what's their deal?
I test my beliefs; I just have come to the conclusion that they are correct. I wasn't a Christian for mot of my life: I grew up in an agnostic and secular home.
So even in the bible, there is no direct quote from God, there is just people relaying what he says. If you really want to teach us the word of the lord, I won't buy it coming from the mouth of anyone but him.
That is when trust comes into play that God is all-powerful and will not let the people taint His Word; it also helps to find continuity in the Bible through all books of it.
I predict night fall before long.
You know what a prophesy is.
If this is the case then why is there not more miracles being done, to impress the masses? I assume you saw one of these miracles, what was done, I'd really like to know.
Because the apostles are no more. The apostles had to be with Christ the entire time of His 3 year ministry and then had to have seen the risen Christ or had to be appointed by Christ Himself to go and be an apostle. Also, 1 Corinthians 13 says that prophesies and other like spiritual gifts will fade but love never will.
A lot of the things they thought were miracles back then, are easily explainable with modern science, and it's not totally impossible for someone to have been way ahead of their time (Like Davinci was) and to wow the people of the time with things they never thought possible, and calling it divine magic.
That is very true; miracles could be naturalistic coincidences. However, even if they were, and could be explained naturalistically, that doesn't deny that God could be manipulating nature to His will.
I guess we're assuming that the ontological argument proves a god (a maximal being) exists. In knowing that such a being exists we have to accept that with our human minds there are things about it that we don't understand but yet its qualities are still maximally great.
The ontological argument certainly doesn't prove the existence of the Christian god but I don't think it rules it out either.
This argument is under the framework that the Christian god has perfect knowledge of the future. Any replies not structured under this framework will be ignored.
The Christian god is not maximal in justice. He created a being with the intent to punish him. The Christian god created The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he then created Adam and promised punishment for an action he knew Adam would commit, eating from the tree. The Christian god created a rule with the punishment of death for a being he knew would break that rule, this isn't a demonstration of justice.
If follows that before creating Adam, the Christian god knew that Adam's sin would lead man's sinful nature, he also knew that there would be punishment for all those who reject Jesus (who came to redeem us from original sin). The Christian god created a system where he would send all those who reject Jesus to Hell, knowing in advanced that he would there would be people who wouldn't accept Jesus. If one believes that Hell is a place of eternal punishment, this would demonstrate that the Christian god is maximally unjust.
The Christian god is not maximal in justice. He created a being with the intent to punish him. The Christian god created The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he then created Adam and promised punishment for an action he knew Adam would commit, eating from the tree. The Christian god created a rule with the punishment of death for a being he knew would break that rule, this isn't a demonstration of justice.
This is a non sequitur. Justice is subjective unless God is the objective standard. Also, though man meant it for evil, God meant it for good in absolution.
If follows that before creating Adam, the Christian god knew that Adam's sin would lead man's sinful nature, he also knew that there would be punishment for all those who reject Jesus (who came to redeem us from original sin). The Christian god created a system where he would send all those who reject Jesus to Hell, knowing in advanced that he would there would be people who wouldn't accept Jesus. If one believes that Hell is a place of eternal punishment, this would demonstrate that the Christian god is maximally unjust.
This is a non sequitur as well. The only way to have injustice is to have a system of objectivism, which can only be based in God's nature. Read Romans 9:
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
Maximal greatness is only such that of positive attributes. He cannot be maximally excellent in not power, while at the same time being maximally excellent in power. Evil is the lack of good, while good is defined by God, which means that God is maximally benevolent and not maximally evil.
It depends on the intention of putting it down or picking it up. Everything that is not out of faith is sin, which means that wherever the heart is at that point would determine if it were sin or not sin.
What if I run around in a kindergarden with a loaded assault rifle with the intention of bringing about some excitement, but then accidently shoot three of them?
My intention was good so it must be a good thing I did.
The end does not justify the means. The end was excitement and the means was potentially dangerous instruments. You are mixing up utilitarian ends; actual ends are not that which one considers in utilitarianism, but instead they are the most likely ends. However, utilitarianism is not that which one should consider because the end does not justify the means.
The Christian god is not both maximally personal and maximally efficient in communication. If he was both, everyone would have the same understanding of him, but this isn't what we see in reality. I present the following two options:
1)The Christian god is maximally efficient in communication, but is not maximally personal. He has the capability to communicate with us effectively, but is not maximally personal, so we have no reason to expect him to.
2)The Christian god is maximally personal, but not maximally efficient in communication. He desperately wants a personal relationship with each and every person, but can't seem to relate a clear message to any of them. This would explain why there are so many religions, and sects within each religion. The Christian god is communicating with us, but not in an efficient way, hence the confusion.
Maximally personal and efficient in communication do not have to be applied to everyone. Communicating with everyone is not a necessity of being maximally efficient in communication. It simply means that the communication is not applied to everyone or the communication is not fully expressed at a time. The same goes with maximally personal, loving, etc. However, for all of these things, God communicates, loves, and is personal maximally to everyone in a broad sense.
The same goes with maximally personal, loving, etc. However, for all of these things, God communicates, loves, and is personal maximally to everyone in a broad sense.
What does "personal maximally to everyone in a broad sense" mean?
God gives everyone a call to come to Him, which is considered the external call in theology. However, that does not mean that everyone will come to Him, since the internal call cannot be denied and is only for His elect. Also, being a personal God simply means being connected to His creations and being able to relate to them, which is done through the Bible and His Word that has condescended to us, which is a theological term for God using worldly terms to help humans understand heavenly concepts.
God gives everyone a call to come to Him, which is considered the external call in theology.
I don't know what this means.
which is done through the Bible and His Word that has condescended to us
I'm arguing that the Bible is an example of him not being maximally efficient in communication because everyone reads it differently. Even if one of the groups interprets is correctly, there is no way to know because every group claims they are interpreting it correctly.
I'm not attempting to claim he doesn't communicate, only that if he is maximally efficient in communication we should see a consensus on how to interpret the Bible. If he doesn't care if we understand the Bible then he isn't maximally personal.
God does not communicate inefficiently. The devil tries to deceive and to twist the Words of God; God communicates effectively but people don't always want to follow what God says. So, no, there should not be a consensus as to what we understand about the Bible.
Is the Christian god incapable of conveying a message without the Devil tampering with it? If Satan is tampering with it, how do we determine what interpretation of the Bible is correct when every group of Christians believes they are right and the rest don't want to follow what the Christian god says?
He can convey the message without the devil tampering with it; that is what the Bible is. The devil doesn't tamper with it in that sense; however, the devil does trick people into believing things about the Bible that are not true or present things that are more pleasurable for people to believe, which attracts more people.
To interprete the Bible correctly one must use Scripture to interpret Scripture; however, this biggest point is to have God allow one to understand it: reference external vs internal call.
this biggest point is to have God allow one to understand it: reference external vs internal call.
Could you elaborate? This part may answer the other questions.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying. If the Bible is the Christian god's attempt to communicate with us, why didn't he write it in a way that isn't open to interpretation, the fact that so many people disagree seems to demonstrate that it isn't a clear message or isn't written for everyone to understand.
If two groups of Christians disagree about the meaning of something in the Bible, how does an outsider determine who is correct?
External call is for everyone, though they are not necessarily the elect. Internal call is for only His elect. External is common grace and the "platonic" form of love and communication and person-ability. Internal is the understanding and loved and befriended peoples.
As I have said, the devil likes to trick people into believing the lies that he tells. God is truth and His truth is obvious; the only problem is that we are battling with the flesh, which makes us want bodily passions, which is to obey the lies.
To interprete the Bible correctly one must use Scripture to interpret Scripture; however, this biggest point is to have God allow one to understand it: reference external vs internal call.
External is common grace and the "platonic" form of love and communication and person-ability. Internal is the understanding and loved and befriended peoples.
I'm being completely honest, I don't know what you are trying to say with this. I understand referencing Scripture to interpret Scripture, but for everything after that, I don't see how it relates to understanding the Bible. Are you saying the Christian god has to permit you to understand before you can understand?
If the Christian god doesn't permit one to understand, are they destined to Hell for not accepting Jesus Christ because they don't understand? You summed it up perfectly. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Disbelief now changes to that of saving faith. As James says, even the demons have faith; however, they do not have faith, in the sense of trust in Christ to save them. So people can understand the Bible and believe; however, they still may not "believe".
So people can understand the Bible and believe; however, they still may not "believe".
I'm not talking about "believe", only believe. Would you agree that anyone God permitted to understand the Bible would believe it to be true, even if they don't choose to follow Jesus (Like the demons)?
Thank you, but that doesn't specifically answer my question, let me rephrase. If someone has been permitted to understand the Bible, would that understanding convince them that the Bible is factual?
Can we please stick to facts. I for one would love for the Christian god to exist, spending eternity absorbing the knowledge of my creator, my creator who loved me enough to go through physical torture for me... come on, don't attempt to tell me what I want to believe.
If God permitted me to understand the Bible would I believe it to be true?
God desires for all to be saved and does not take delight in the destruction of the wicked; however, at the same time He wills for the wicked to be so that He may destroy them justly and display His wrath towards evil, which brings grace and mercy to His elect.
I've given everything you have said a great deal of thought, but keep getting hung up on one problem. Based on what you said, it seems like the Christian god could be more personal than he is being right now, because he could be more personal but isn't, he isn't being maximally personal.
I may have just misunderstood something you said, but this is the conclusion I keep coming to.
He could be. That means that He is but is holding back.
So a maximally personal being could hold back his being maximally personal?
I disagree as to whether God is holding back personally.
If God granted everyone with Biblical understanding, and he allowed everyone to believe with the Holy Spirit, wouldn't that allow him to be more personal?
So a maximally personal being could hold back his being maximally personal?
In a sense.
If God granted everyone with Biblical understanding, and he allowed everyone to believe with the Holy Spirit, wouldn't that allow him to be more personal?
Not at all. Personal simply means connecting with His people. He can connect with His elect maximally, which qualifies Him to be maximally personal.
The Abrahamic God is the only God in history that is maximal in really any capacity. No other God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It follows that since the abrahamic God is still around, proving personal aspect, and it is the only God to have maximal capacities, then it is the real one.
Islam is self-proclaimed self-contradictory. Muhammad said that he did no good works; few, if any, of his prophesies came true. He was one man who claimed to be the final prophet of God after Jesus, who they believe to be the Messiah, which is God. Their religion is utterly contradictory to itself: most Muslims agree that this is true; they say that man has free will and has influenced the word of God, which means that this God is not maximally sovereign.
Jews fall into two categories: Jews and messianic Jews. Jews in today's world do not follow the teachings of the Old Testament. Messianic Jews are pretty much any Jews that believe that the Old Testament is waiting for the messiah. Most of these Jews are Christians because the prophesies for Him are clearly connected to Jesus.
Therefore, Christianity is the logical conclusion.
What I'm trying to figure out is how to determine if this maximal being is the Christian god. We need someway to differentiate between the Christian god and a god someone made up. The reasons you gave could be atributed to a made up god with no way to falsify them. Do you have any Maximal qualities that are falsifiable?
No other God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
I don't think these can be considered because a maximal being could have these but not demonstrate them to us. They aren't falsifiable.
It follows that since the abrahamic God is still around, proving personal aspect,
I don't think this one can be considered either, a maximal being isn't required to be personal to everyone or anyone to be maximally personal. For all we know this maximal being was already personal with people before written language, or maybe it will be personal in the future. It very well could be being personal with aliens, should they exists somewhere in the universe, past present or future. This one isn't falsifiable either.
A maximally personal being would have to be personal in some aspect. You are also missing one huge issue, though: He would have to be maximally sovereign. That is a quality that cannot be chosen to be or not to be at certain times. That would mean that this being would be controlling us; that would mean that in a certain sense, this being would be personal always, just not maximally to everyone.
A maximally personal being would have to be personal in some aspect.
Is a maximal being required to inform all beings within the universe that he has been personal with one or more beings? Couldn't someone say that their god is personal with the angels he created, or is just personal with a group that we just weren't included in?
He would have to be maximally sovereign.
As an outsider, how would I determine the difference between the Christian god and a made up god, both who are said to be sovereign?
It can only be the Christian God. Why do I say this? I say this because there can only be one maximally great being that can be conceived. If the Abrahamic God is the maximally great being, then it follows that any other being imagined to be excessively great would have to be less than the maximally great being; otherwise, which one is maximally great? Therefore, since the Abrahamic God is maximally great, namely the Christian God, since both Jews and Muslims deny God to be maximally excellent in sovereignty, any being that is conceived to be maximally great would actually be the Christian God in a different possible world.
I say this because there can only be one maximally great being that can be conceived.
I agree.
If the Abrahamic God is the maximally great being, then it follows that any other being imagined to be excessively great would have to be less than the maximally great being; otherwise, which one is maximally great?
That's my question exactly. How do we determine that the Abrahamic god is the maximally great being.
These are the qualities you have given me to support the Christian god being the maximal being:
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omni-benevolent
Maximally Personal
Maximally Sovereign
I agree, the Christian god is described to have these non-falsifiable qualities. Why do you believe that is justification to accept everything else attributed to him as true?
I agree, the Christian god is described to have these non-falsifiable qualities. Why do you believe that is justification to accept everything else attributed to him as true?
Because there can only be one maximally great being. If one can conceive of the maximally great being, which is reverted into beliefs-properly-so-called, then it follows that the being must be the Christian God, since the Christian God is described as being maximally great. Any being that is imagined to be maximally great is actually the Christian God being renamed and rethought of.
If one can conceive of the maximally great being, which is reverted into beliefs-properly-so-called, then it follows that the being must be the Christian God, since the Christian God is described as being maximally great.
How does describing the Christian god as a maximal being lead to the belief that the Bible is an accurate portrayal of the other qualities of this maximal being?
Because the being described in it is a maximally great being, which is existent in every possible world. That means that the stories in the Bible are true in some possible world.
Also, the maximally great being's qualities are described in the Bible as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Sub0categories follow from that.
Because the being described in it is a maximally great being, which is existent in every possible world. That means that the stories in the Bible are true in some possible world.
How does describing the Christian god as a maximal being demonstrate the that he took human form in the person of Jesus Christ, preformed miracles, and was resurrected in our world?
Because in some possible world the very maximally great being did take form and named Himself Jesus and performed miracles and was raised from the dead. Whether this happened in our world is not in the reach of the argument; that goes to history.
Objective morality can only be determined via an objective moral prescribe. That means that God is Himself morality and justice. Since there can only be one maximally excellent being of power, and the Christian God is this being, then it follows that it is also the omnibenevolent being, since it would have to be the maximally great being and, thus, maximally excellent in all capacities.
The maximally great being is not falsifiable. That was the entire point of the encompassing of Kant's objection by philosophers. It reverts into beliefs-properly-so-called and cannot be proven or disproven.
I'm having a hard time understanding your position. If I propose Davith, a maximal being who dictates lying is moral, how does an outsider determine which of our proposed maximal beings is actually the maximal being demonstrated to exist by the ontological argument?
There can only be one maximally powerful being. That is claimed to be the Christian God. Therefore, this God must be the maximally great being, which means that it must be omnibenevolent.
Correct, you claim it is the Christian god, I claim it is Davith.
We are simply talking about the same God. However, only one of them can be omnipotent. Whichever one is omnipotent is the maximally great being and the omnibenevolent being.
One of them is true. A maximally great being would be maximally truthful, since it is maximally excellent in all positive aspects. Also, a being that is maximally personal and maximally loving could not lie. Also, if this being were to be a liar, then it would not be maximally trustworthy and not be capable of being maximally excellent in that aspect either.
You are getting caught up on the wrong issue, lying is just an example, the point is that they disagree. Forget Davith, Liloria is a maximal being who created Adam from the rib of Eve.
The Christian god and Liloria disagree about how Adam was created, how does an outsider determine which one is the maximal being?
Maximally personal and efficient in communication do not have to be applied to everyone.
To a maximally great being, that is fabled as perfect, it does.
Have you honestly ever asked yourself this question about God? I mean you told me you questioned and have already got that we are wrong and you're right, but do you ask the questions that need to be answered?
Namely: Why can't God reveal himself to us? Is it as Stryker says, he doesn't want to or he does not know how to properly in a way that wouldn't make us hate him.
Namely: Why can't God reveal himself to us? Is it as Stryker says, he doesn't want to or he does not know how to properly in a way that wouldn't make us hate him.
He can. He doesn't want to; however, at the same time He does want to. He wants to because He loves His creations and does not want them to be destroyed; however, He does not want to at the same time because He wills that they should be guilty of not understanding. God communicates effectively; the question is when He desires to communicate effectively and whether or not there are competing voices in the air that are from the devil. Refer to Romans 9 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.
How would He not be maximally personal? I have already told you that maximally personal does not mean that this quality has to be applied to everyone at all times, just as communication and love are.
God is still maximally great and maximally excellent in all capacities.
He knows how to communicate his love to us as you say, but does not want to, and in not doing that, their are people going to Hell because they didn't love God because they never heard from him, which circles back to him not wanting to speak to them. In the end, if he loved them, he would have simply communicated, he didn't he does not love them.
On a separate note, it's ironic that you can say he's all loving, when it was you who told me he created the wicked to demonstrate his might on. It is in creating a group that he only wished to destroy that proves he's not all loving. You proved he's not all loving.
As I said, maximally excellent in love, person-ability, and communication are not required to be expanded to everyone at all times. Until you can rebut that statement, then there is no further use here because it keeps coming back to points that I have already answered.
Because maximal excellence in love is to say love is maximal. That does not mean that this love is applied to all things; it simply means that His love for whatever He chooses to love is maximal.
This is false. The statement that his love is maximal is false, because once before you even said he loves everyone (hence being omnibenevolent) he just loves them to varying degrees. You're contradicting yourself.
This is a a contradiction to the statement you made where you said he loves all, but to varying levels. Even still, this saying he loves who he wants to love, but loves who he loves maximally, is still saying there is some he doesn't love, proving he's not all loving.
I already told you that maximally loving is loving maximally, which God does in both senses of the word love, which is in the personal and common grace sense.
Omnibenevolence means in part to be all-loving. However, this "all" means to be maximally. As I have said countless times now, God maximally loves those whom He loves, in the sense of loving that is referenced. I'm sorry, but until you can rebut the point of omnibenevolence being not necessarily ubiquitous, though it is in some aspects, then there is no point in continuing.
As Christians tell us, he wants to have a personal relationship with us (although I don't know why such a powerful being needs that self satisfaction) yet as history has shown, and even bible references that I'm not versed enough to quote will show, every time he tried to reveal himself to the masses we shunned him for it, showing that he has terrible communication skills.
It is as you say. He either does not want a relationship with us (not maximally personal) or he wants it but doesn't know how to relay it to us (not maximally efficient in communication. )
Can he see the future? Well actually before that's answered, a personal question.
What exactly is a maximal being? How would us minimal creatures know what maximal actually was? I mean even if God is maximal, how do we know he's actually the greatest there is, and isn't just the greatest of us but somewhere out in the great yonder there isn't some being that's greater?
I mean even if God is maximal, how do we know he's actually the greatest there is.
Rather than that, I'm hoping to find the qualities that the Christian god possesses that are not maximal. That is much easier to demonstrate and discuss.
Atheists don't know where God lacks in perfection.
I'm sure if non-Christians look at the Bible and reality, we will be able to find at least one quality where he can be demonstrated to not be maximal. I'm going to post an argument soon, I'm just waiting to see what others say first.
We have theoretical limits which stem from quantum mechanics, but they are just theoretical. So even within our own reality I wouldn't be so sure. God is supposed to be this super-real, metaphysical thing so even if we have restrictions in our physical world then there's not necessarily anything restricting him.
Given that the Christian God is all powerful etc, God should be able to break any restrictions we might have. There of course could some God-restricting effects, but that of course is debatable.
Well I would argue the case that there can't be any restriction on a God because Occam's Razor is in favour of such a hypothesis.
Let's start at the beginning. God is an idea that's supposed to primarily explain why there's a world in the first place, and secondarily why the world is like it is. In order for a God to have created the world God must have unfathomable powers. This is possibly why the monotheistic religions tend to propose an all-powerful God.
Now, quite a bit of paradoxes arise when we want to call God all-powerful (e.g. can God create a stone he can't lift?), and as far as I can tell there's only two choices from here on. Either God is impossible or God transcends logic.
So let's say that God transcends logic then we have another problem. It is impossible to assign any property to God (at least in a non-temporal sense); we can't even say that God is illogical, because such a proposition requires logic. Anyway, the useful implication for my case is that God can't be restricted by anything, because God could simply not choose to follow whatever logic that would lead to a restriction. So yeah, since we can't use logic against God we can't really do much of anything. Assuming God is all-powerful, God can choose not to be restricted by any means.
We could add some further assumptions to allow God both to trascend logic while still being restricted by certain circumstances; but this is where Occam's Razor would be in favor of my take on it.
Okay, I understand. How do we convey this application of Occam's Razor to Christians who would say that he can do all things not logically contradictory?
While a great explanation, no religious person will accept that as it demonstrates that there is no way to really know anything about their god, which doesn't make for a successful religious meme.
This is a great question, but I am afraid I have no clue how Occam's Razor would help. Dealing with faith based positions tends to be more about talking the good talk, listening, smiling and agreeing for hours, while insisting that there's valid alternatives to his/her faith.
So to be a bit more blunt, what it takes to convince Christians tends to be less about making sense and more about appealing to human natures. Occam's Razor is a bit too abstract to actually help in a discussion I think. Also, using such advanced principles and terminology may also come across as intellectual snobbery which sure wouldn't help.
I didn't even know that was a word, I just assumed because peak is like an elevated point, that peak my interests meant to elevate my intereste. Thank you for correcting me.
