5 ms·

It always seemed a logistical disconnect to me that people conclude god isn't good, therefore he doesn't exist. It's a non-sequitur.

cjfd 2y ago
That depends on how once conceives god. For instance, Anselm defined god as a being than which no greater can be conceived. If one accepts that definition, it is in fact a sequitur.
mrob 2y ago
It's not a non-sequitur. The usual reason people believe in a god is because some religious group says that the god exists. Those religious groups usually also claim that their god is good. If they're wrong about the goodness, why shouldn't they be wrong about the existence too?
- missedthecue 2y ago
  Just because someone is wrong about one thing does not mean they're wrong about everything else too. That does not follow, rationally.
  - mrob 2y ago
    When both things are claimed based on the same evidence it follows to judge them together.
card_zero 2y ago
The Gnostic demiurge is fun. An antagonistic creator.
surgical_fire 2y ago
That's not how it works. "God exists and he is good" is mentioned as fact. The evidence of the existence of God would be his goodness - call it miracles if you will. In a world where you perceive the absence of this goodness removes the only evidence provided. The logical consequence is not that god exists and is malevolent, the logical consequence is that the goodness is not there because God does not exist.
- missedthecue 2y ago
  The 'miracles' can easily exist alongside his badness. I'm not sure why everyone makes it out to be either/or. There is no universal law that says being both can't logically be true. I mean, there's an easy way to prove this. If I said humans exist and humans are good, you could point out Hitler, and all it does is prove humans are good and bad, and doesn't test whether they exist. And in fact it doesn't even prove that they aren't good, just that they are also bad. So if someone says "god exists and he is good" and all you end up doing is disputing the second statement... you didn't even touch the first.
  - krapp 2y ago
    When people say that "god isn't good, therefore he doesn't exist," they are very likely referring specifically to the Abrahamic God, and this is likely the only God they can conceive of as possibly existing. Of course you're correct that, in the abstract, the set of potential divine deities is infinite. But most people in the Western world turning away from religion are turning away from some flavor of the Abrahamic religious complex.
    - missedthecue 2y ago
      It's interesting you bring up the Abrahamic God, because the old testament specifically describes Him as, among other things, - Jealous - "Full of wrath" - Vengeful - Willing to harden hearts (make people resistant to obedience) - demanding and severe - prone to tempting or testing people These are not my pejorative statements, but the literal language used, at least in the English translations. It seems the idea that the Abrahamic God is just trying to make everyone's life better all the time is a more modern western invention. I don't think it was common even 150 years ago.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        Yeah, but this lore was retconned post Jesus. After that God was supposedly a lot merrier. And I say supposedly because even this God of Love allowed merry events such as the Inquisition to happen. Maybe He just liked a good barbecue.

cjfd 2y ago

That depends on how once conceives god. For instance, Anselm defined god as a being than which no greater can be conceived. If one accepts that definition, it is in fact a sequitur.

mrob 2y ago

It's not a non-sequitur. The usual reason people believe in a god is because some religious group says that the god exists. Those religious groups usually also claim that their god is good. If they're wrong about the goodness, why shouldn't they be wrong about the existence too?

missedthecue 2y ago
Just because someone is wrong about one thing does not mean they're wrong about everything else too. That does not follow, rationally.
- mrob 2y ago
  When both things are claimed based on the same evidence it follows to judge them together.

card_zero 2y ago

The Gnostic demiurge is fun. An antagonistic creator.

surgical_fire 2y ago

That's not how it works. "God exists and he is good" is mentioned as fact. The evidence of the existence of God would be his goodness - call it miracles if you will. In a world where you perceive the absence of this goodness removes the only evidence provided. The logical consequence is not that god exists and is malevolent, the logical consequence is that the goodness is not there because God does not exist.

missedthecue 2y ago
The 'miracles' can easily exist alongside his badness. I'm not sure why everyone makes it out to be either/or. There is no universal law that says being both can't logically be true. I mean, there's an easy way to prove this. If I said humans exist and humans are good, you could point out Hitler, and all it does is prove humans are good and bad, and doesn't test whether they exist. And in fact it doesn't even prove that they aren't good, just that they are also bad. So if someone says "god exists and he is good" and all you end up doing is disputing the second statement... you didn't even touch the first.
- krapp 2y ago
  When people say that "god isn't good, therefore he doesn't exist," they are very likely referring specifically to the Abrahamic God, and this is likely the only God they can conceive of as possibly existing. Of course you're correct that, in the abstract, the set of potential divine deities is infinite. But most people in the Western world turning away from religion are turning away from some flavor of the Abrahamic religious complex.
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    It's interesting you bring up the Abrahamic God, because the old testament specifically describes Him as, among other things, - Jealous - "Full of wrath" - Vengeful - Willing to harden hearts (make people resistant to obedience) - demanding and severe - prone to tempting or testing people These are not my pejorative statements, but the literal language used, at least in the English translations. It seems the idea that the Abrahamic God is just trying to make everyone's life better all the time is a more modern western invention. I don't think it was common even 150 years ago.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      Yeah, but this lore was retconned post Jesus. After that God was supposedly a lot merrier. And I say supposedly because even this God of Love allowed merry events such as the Inquisition to happen. Maybe He just liked a good barbecue.