No, I don’t accept God. I’m asking you two questions:
- Is it logically possible for something to be all-powerful and all-knowing but not all-good?
- If so, is it still acceptable to name this thing “God”?
@180Proof Yes, theists haven’t proved God exists but atheists haven’t disproved God either.
As I showed the PoE is solved by a Deus malus. PoS (suffering) and we agree that suffering is a bitter truth. Negative utilitarianism is on the same page as Jesus (God) and so there’s objective morality but which derives from God. If it were a human thing this wouldn’t be the case.
- Yes, that’s what we have to accept
- Yes, God can be good or bad and 1 affirms this state of affairs
Why don’t you accept God? The PoE/PoS means God is malicious/bi-moral. There is a God. How can you reject a foundational truth of reality?
False.
Strawman.
Ok. What is the truth then, regarding Christus dolens and negative utilitarianism?
Have atheists disproved God, yes/no?
Then God is not the source of objective morality.
Whether or not God is good depends on whether or not it conforms to some independent objective morality.
So your “argument from objective morality” does not work to prove the existence of God.
There’s no good evidence or reasons to believe such a thing. It’s not even clear what “God” means. You’ve already accepted that of the three "O"s, one of them is unnecessary, but what of the other two?
- Is it possible for God to be all-powerful and all-good but not all-knowing?
- Is it possible for God to be all-knowing and all-good but not all-powerful?
They have nothing to do with one another. In fact, Christ’s via dolorosa (re: “the passion”) is the antithesis to Epicurus’ via tranquilla (re: “tetrapharmakon”). Martyrdom —|—> disutilitarian. 
Non sequitur. We have “disproved” (religious) theism. Atheism does not claim ‘there are no gods’ or "God doesn’t exist’, rather we claim theism is not true – the implication of which being that theistic deities are imaginary (and other non-theistic concepts (e.g. acosmism, pandeism) are undecideable) – and therefore not believed.
@Michael As you know 180Proof and I are trying to figure out how negative utilitarianism relates to Christus dolens and whether it’s an objective morality or not. Good has knowledge of morality like we on occasion do.
God is the creator of the universe, God gave us morality, God is the Nous.
You said “God can be good or bad”. What does this mean if not that there is an independent objective morality with which to judge the morality of God?
Or is an evil God somehow still the source of objective morality?
Is that all it is? X is God if and only if X is the creator of the universe?
Then:
- What evidence is there that something is the creator of the universe?
- What evidence is there that only one thing is the creator of the universe?
- What evidence is there that the creator of the universe is all-powerful?
- What evidence is there that the creator of the universe is all-knowing?
- What evidence is there that the creator of the universe is all-good?
- What evidence is there that the creator of the universe “gave us morality”?
- What evidence is there that the creator of the universe “is the Nous”?
@180Proof Christ’s suffering is central to the Christian doctrine. Our suffering, likewise, is to us. Christ is God and hence the objective morality of negative utilitarianism has divine sanction.
Atheism = Theism is not true.
Theism = Atheism is not true.
@Michael God can be good or bad and God is the ground of objective morality. There’s no issue.
I’ll only answer the relevant questions.
God is The Creator and that makes him all-powerful. God gave us morality - the oldest moral theories revolve around some deity/deities. Other moral theories arrive much later. Moral objectivity requires God. We’re not objective but we somehow recognize that some things are wrong and some things are right, just. The universe seems so ordered and hence Nous.
Atheism obtains iff theism is not true, and theism is not true so long as it’s burden of proof remains unmet.
1 Like
Yes, it’s quite amusing, this whole affair. 
Perhaps we can work with a similar issue to clear up matters. Suppose I say there’s a pastry in the fridge. I agree that I have to prove this claim. You’re saying that unless I do that you won’t believe that there’s a pastry in the fridge. Fair. Now you eat the pastry, come back to me and tell me that there’s no pastry in the fridge. I’m saying that unless you prove this I’m going to believe there is a pastry in the fridge. This is the ad ignorantiam fallacy. The most logical position is agnosticism (we don’t know … whether there is a God or not).
Negative utilitarianism touches a chord. It’s a sensible moral theory (aponia, re Epicurus).
I’m losing the plot as the discussion veers off in different directions. I had started the thread as a counterpoint to Banno’s thread on failures in generic arguments for the existence of God. The point is that disproofs of God are as refutable as proofs of God. I’ve attempted to list some of the disproofs in this thread. It’s no surprise that there are very few of them. As @180Proof says atheism is when theism can’t meet the onus probandi. However in all fairness atheists who claim God doesn’t exist also have to bear the burden of proof which they haven’t. The only reasonable position is agnosticism. There’s no issue with either theism or atheism that’s adopted under an agnostic umbrella. Agnostic theist and agnostic atheist are valid positions.
Second, some of the theistic arguments I presented (objective morality and order) don’t adequately justify the existence of an OOO-God. There’s no point in contributors pulling on those threads unless they find them satisfactory proofs of God.
I’ve also assumed a liberal stance on the nature of God, willing to accept a Deus malus or a God that’s not omnipotent or omniscient. Here I see a good opportunity for acceptance but God’s a mere shadow of the God as popularly conceived - there’s less to disagree on if God’s not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent but what a sad God this is for theists.
Lastly, a fact we can’t ignore is that some intelligent, educated, well-informed folk (mathematicians, scientists, philosophers) are theists (not deists) i.e. they believe in the OOO-God (the Christian God is a common choice). This calls into question the belief, and dispels the common misconception, that God is some kind of delusion or is the consequence of brain failure. I wish to direct attention towards this anomaly in atheism’s general claim to be rational and that theism is irrational. Those who wish to contribute (@Michael and others) please do so on this matter or on God as not omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent.
I beseech you from the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken ~ Cromwell’s rule
Define “God” and I’ll show that that “God” is an empty name (or imaginary). 
I don’t think it’s “reasonable to be agnostic” about entities which are indistinguishable from non-entities.
1 Like
What does it mean for a bad god to be the ground of objective morality?
Where’s the evidence of such a thing, and why only one such thing?
That’s a non sequitur.
Where’s the evidence?
That’s a non sequitur.
That’s a non sequitur.
All of the questions are relevant.
Then what is a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, non-omnibenevolent God? Is it just some supernatural creator deity — an intelligent designer? Then where’s the evidence of such a thing, and why only one such thing?
Nice. First things first. The God of religion can’t be disproved.
Second, I’m willing to work on what God is - he needn’t be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibebevolent. Those who are convinced by the PoE may concede to an evil God, and not atheism.
Given: No Proof(God exists) & No Proof(God doesn’t exist). Agnosticism is most reasonable.
P. S. Did you read my post in entirety? You haven’t said anything about intelligent, educated, well-informed theists. To reiterate, theists are as rational as you are, perhaps even more rational and accusing them of fallacious thinking, like failure to meet the burden of proof, is a bit lame.
Theism is unevenly distributed over STEM professionals.
@Michael I’m ignoring your first post. I’ve already commented on the issues you raise there.
God may not be omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent. Compare this to the original OOO- God and see for yourself what happen. Kindly tell us what comes of it.
Why only 1 God? I find polytheism better accords with the state of affairs, but we don’t need gods to cause pandemonium.
Also in my last post I had flagged another point of interest - intelligent, educated, informed theists. An anomaly we have to face.
Your comments are fallacies, starting with unjustified assertions and ending with non sequiturs.
What is a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, and non-omnibenevolent God, and what evidence is there that such a thing exists?
So you’re saying that there is evidence that multiple non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, and non-omnibenevolent gods exist? Then please share this evidence.
There are also intelligent, educated, and informed atheists. What of it?
My concern here is that your arguments are bad arguments. It’s not the belief that matters to me but the justification that you are offering in support of this belief.
1 Like
You haven’t considered them seriously then. My comment explicitly conceded the untenablity of the arguments I presented. If that was fallacious then there’s something to them.
I’m not clear about a God that’s not omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. I forwarded the file to you and 180Proof.
Polytheism is not that popular and the Abrahamic triad moved away from it a long time ago. As I said, gods are not the only ones that can cause mayhem.
Yes, intelligent, informed, educated atheists exist. That’s not the problem. I’ve already said we have an anomaly on our hands. You can see it, right?
Yes, it’s about belief as there are no arguments that settle the matter for both camps. Hence agnostic theist and agnostic atheist.
Let’s first consider the possibility that God is not omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent.
- There are people who believe in a God that is morally ambiguous (Deus bimoralis/Deus duorum morum) or outright bad (Deus malus)
- People have also said that God is not omnipotent
- I’ve also heard claims that God is not omniscient
So I ask again; what is this “God” and what evidence is there for such a thing?