The Greatest Conceivable being???

Originally posted by Agerg
Well you've offered very little of anything to be honest; and as for
[b]Prove then, if you can, that you are morally superior to god. (this should be interesting)
it is (a) a different discussion, (b) required that you acknowledge the entity to which I refer is your notion of some god.

Make a new thread; might entertain you on it, if you play ball in this thread.[/b]

wrong, it is part of this discussion. if you claim that god could more benevolent, then you are claiming moral superiority, which you have yet to establish.

Originally posted by Doward
athiest X1 and athiest X2 are hypotheticals, we know nothing of who they are and what they have and have not accomplished, so I feel no moral bias towards either example. However putting a face to these hypotheticals (even one I do not know) can alter my objectivity. So which is better? Purely hypothetically X2 is optimal...or is it? Perhaps at the moment of I said, for someone who is in college you suffer from some real reading comprehension issues.

athiest X1 and athiest X2 are hypotheticals, we know nothing of who they are and what they have and have not accomplished, so I feel no moral bias towards either example. However putting a face to these hypotheticals (even one I do not know) can alter my objectivity. So which is better? Purely hypothetically X2 is optimal...or is it? Perhaps at the moment of xis death X1 has a moment of clarity as xer life flashes by. That moment leads xer to the realization of a supreme being and xhe comes into full reconciliation with the creator (hypothetically of course). This is the problem with the hypotheticals as you have framed them, unless they can be held universally true, then they are supect and useless in philisophical debate.
No need for universally true at all - infact one counter example is all that is required to disprove a universal rule. I.e. for atheists {X_2, X_3, ..., X_n} it could be the case thet they all have an epiphany just before they breath their last agonising breath. But if this is not the case for some atheist X_1 we're done.

pretty sure that's not what I said, for someone who is in college you suffer from some real reading comprehension issues.
Oh ok; well I'm sure I can infer what are the consequences for not accepting Jesus, but why don't you just spell it out - or are you just going to hide your perspective on this and use this as justification to avoid my questions.

Not college by the way; last year of a 4 year undergraduate masters in maths thanks (as a mature student).

Originally posted by Doward
wrong, it is part of this discussion. if you claim that god could [b]more benevolent, then you are claiming moral superiority, which you have yet to establish.[/b]

Wrong - I could be an utter bast*** and still be able to point out your god could be more benevolent in at least one situation (and *at least one* is all I require).

Originally posted by Agerg
Wrong - I could be an utter bast*** and still be able to point out your god could be more benevolent in at least one situation (and *at least one* is all I require).

I disagree. A morally superior being would be far more rational than humankind, and as such would see the ends and not merely the means, any "point" you may make must be seen to its ultimate end, which you do not have the ability to do.

You have as yet not offered any example which can be held universally true

Not college by the way; last year of a 4 year undergraduate masters in maths thanks (as a mature student).[/b]

that would be college in the US

Originally posted by Doward
I disagree. A morally superior being would be far more rational than humankind, and as such would see the ends and not merely the means, any "point" you may make must be seen to its ultimate end, which you do not have the ability to do.

You have as yet not offered any example which can be held universally true

Right...well why don't you tell me what happens to an atheist (an explicit atheist who rejects the premise your god exists and does not accept Jesus as his saviour) when he dies, according to your doctrine. We can then logically investigate what can be the ultimate ends for such atheists who spend the last agonising moments of their life gargling their own blood. I am sure I can infer it already but it would be better if I had it in words. Or if you're going to keep playing the "ah but you're aiming blind because I haven't told you what I believe" game then there is no point discussing anything with you.

Shoot...

Originally posted by Agerg
Right...well why don't you tell me what happens to an atheist (an explicit atheist who rejects the premise your god exists and does not accept Jesus as his saviour) when he dies, according to your doctrine. We can then logically investigate what can be the ultimate ends for such atheists who spend the last agonising moments of their life gargling their own blo ...[text shortened]... you what I believe" game then there is no point discussing anything with you.

Shoot...

athiest's who are not reconciled with God simply die...that's it. No punishment, they just die...finito

Originally posted by Doward
athiest's who are not reconciled with God simply die...that's it. No punishment, they just die...finito

athiest's who are not reconciled with God simply die...that's it. No punishment, they just die...finito
So I was actually barking up the correct tree when I incorporated the two standard notions of an atheist's fate upon death (hell or eternal death) into the following:

In the present it should be omni-benevolent with respect to each individual; so if an "unsaved" atheist is being brutally murdered, your god's inaction for this poor chap has to be evaluated as more (or just as) benevolent than (as) sparing him from the suffering he experiences before dying (and supposedly proceeeding then to his doom, to some other barbaric realm of existence (or non-existence of course)). You are reluctant to consider such scenarios.

and your response with
I once again reject the premis of your question, you have not safely established that God only cares about people who are "saved".

was just for the lols, an attempt to twist and turn the direction of this discussion in the hope of steering it into a web of confusion, or just to rile me.


Ah well, now we've established, in words, that if an atheist does not accept Jesus as his savior (or whatever else it takes to become saved) then they die eternally. I ask:

assuming there exists at least one atheist who has so far been brutally murdered and had more pressing things to think about [1] than which is the correct version of god to believe in; then is it your view that a god putting them out of their misery quickly (and then dying eternally) is no better than letting them languish in excrutiating pain (and then dying eternally)???




--------------------------------------------------
1) as much as one can think clearly when they're in the midst of panic, fear, and confusion; flailing about in agony doing whatever they can (in vain) to live that little bit longer.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]athiest's who are not reconciled with God simply die...that's it. No punishment, they just die...finito
So I was actually barking up the correct tree when I incorporated the two standard notions of an atheist's fate upon death (hell or eternal death) into the following:

[quote]In the present it should be omni-benevolent with respect to each individu ...[text shortened]... iling about in agony doing whatever they can (in vain) to live that little bit longer.[/b]

I once again reject the premis of your question, you have not safely established that God only cares about people who are "saved".

was just for the lols, an attempt to twist and turn the direction of this discussion in the hope of steering it into a web of confusion, or just to rile me.


Wrong again. You question that god is not maximally benevolent, and make an assuption about whether god cares if athiests live or die etc... When you start with a bad premis, then the logic immediately goes South....as has most of your argument. From page 1:
Is a worldwhere Hitler didn't get struck by lightning before his rise to power better than a world where millions of jews were not tortured/killed, and millions of people did not die painful deaths trying to help put an end to a madman's evil schemes?

-----------
You assume that Hitler's life is an ultimately bad thing. We cannot know what the consequences would be if Hitler died at (for arguments sake) 6. Perhaps without Hitler, Stalin would have run amok in Europe causing many many more deaths and far more damage. This kind of reasoning is empirical and belongs in the catagorey of anthropology, not in philisophical debate. All arguments must be a priori to be truly objective.

Originally posted by Doward
[b]I once again reject the premis of your question, you have not safely established that God only cares about people who are "saved".

was just for the lols, an attempt to twist and turn the direction of this discussion in the hope of steering it into a web of confusion, or just to rile me.


Wrong again. You question that god is not maximal not in philisophical debate. All arguments must be a priori to be truly objective.[/b]

Wrong again. You question that god is not maximally benevolent, and make an assuption about whether god cares if athiests live or die etc... When you start with a bad premis, then the logic immediately goes South....as has most of your argument. From page 1:
No doward, that is your mistake. My argument was not about whether god cared or not[1]; in this thread I'm concerned only with looking for counter examples to the claim it is maximally benevolent. I'll defer my conclusions for another thread.

You assume that Hitler's life is an ultimately bad thing. We cannot know what the consequences would be if Hitler died at (for arguments sake) 6. Perhaps without Hitler, Stalin would have run amok in Europe causing many many more deaths and far more damage. This kind of reasoning is empirical and belongs in the catagorey of anthropology, not in philisophical debate. All arguments must be a priori to be truly objective.
Easy...Stalin should also be struck down by a bolt of lightning. in this case..and then the next ar$ehole bent on world domination/mass murder, and so on... (oh and I mentioned Hitler should be struck down *just before* he concretises his plans; I'm sure I'll have to refer to this statement in your next response)


My question in the last post has not been addressed.





------------------------------------------
1) it may follow that is the case should we find one situation where he failed to be benevolent but this is not an integral part of my argument - at this stage; i.e. I need not consider what your god cares about or what it doesn't care about - I need only consider what it does from situation to situation and evaluate whether it's response was most benevelent.