Omnibenevolence

[Xavier_Onassis]

"Omnibenevolence" appears to have a very casual usage among some Protestant Christian commentators. The earliest record for its use in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is in 1679. The Catholic Church does not appear to use the term "omnibenevolent" in the liturgy or Catechism.

Modern users of the term include George H. Smith in his book Atheism: The Case Against God (1980),[2] where he argued that divine qualities are inconsistent. However, the term is also used by authors who defend the coherence of divine attributes, including but not limited to, Jonathan Kvanvig in The Problem of Hell (1993),[3] and Joshua Hoffman and Gary Rosenkrantz in The Divine Attributes (2002).[4]
[edit] Philosophical perspectives

The term is patterned on, and often accompanied by, the terms "omniscience" and "omnipotence", typically to refer to conceptions of an "all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful" deity. Philosophers and theologians more commonly use phrases like "perfectly good",[5] or simply the term "benevolence". The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.

The notion of an omnibenevolent, infinitely compassionate deity, has raised certain atheistic objections, such as the problem of evil and the problem of hell. Responses to such problems are called theodicies and can be general, arguing for the coherence of the divine, such as Swinburne's Providence and the Problem of Evil, or they can address a specific problem, such as Charles Seymour's A Theodicy of Hell.
[edit] Religious perspectives


The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an essential foundation in traditional Christianity; this can be seen in Scriptures such as Psalms 18:30: "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him," and Ps.19:7: "The law of the Lord is good, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." This understanding is evident in the following statement by the First Vatican Council:

    The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since He is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in Himself and from Himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides Himself which either exists or can be imagined.[6]

The philosophical justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if He was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.[7]

Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute. As such, God's other attributes should be understood in light of omnibenevolence.

[Plane]

That is confusing.


God is adamately good , but in what scripture does he promise to be good for YOU no matter what you do?

It is good that he imposes conditions , elese he would be stuck in a paradox of having to be good to evil itself.

Modern users of the term include George H. Smith in his book Atheism: The Case Against God...

I detect a strawman, There is ,as far as I know, no scripture behind it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The usual argument is that God cannot, by definition, do anything but good. Anything God does is good, not because it is the right thing, but because he did it.

The term is not invalid because an atheist uses it in a book.

[Plane]

The usual argument is that God cannot, by definition, do anything but good. Anything God does is good, not because it is the right thing, but because he did it.

The term is not invalid because an atheist uses it in a book.

When God decides to do something that is no good for Hitler , is he failing to be Omnibenevelolent twards Hitler?

It is an invalid idea because I do not understand it, as everyone knows I understand anything that is true.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Look, if an omnibenevolent God decides to make the Sun go Supernova and wipe us all out today, that is by definition a good and moral act, because God performed it. Anything that an omnibenevolent Deity does is good because he does it. That is the concept. God cannot do anything evil, so all he does is good.

People who do not subscribe to the concept of omnibenevolence claim that God COULD do evil if he wished, but that he never does evil, because he chooses not to. Of course, if God is omnipotent, then he can do everything, and everything has to include evil, doesn't it?

There are a number of these contradictions inherent within the concept of omnipotence:

Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Can God make a lock so well designed he could not pick it?

Can God lower or raise the temperature of absolute zero?

[Plane]

Look, if an omnibenevolent God decides to make the Sun go Supernova and wipe us all out today, that is by definition a good and moral act, because God performed it. Anything that an omnibenevolent Deity does is good because he does it. That is the concept. God cannot do anything evil, so all he does is good.

People who do not subscribe to the concept of omnibenevolence claim that God COULD do evil if he wished, but that he never does evil, because he chooses not to. Of course, if God is omnipotent, then he can do everything, and everything has to include evil, doesn't it?

There are a number of these contradictions inherent within the concept of omnipotence:

Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Can God make a lock so well designed he could not pick it?

Can God lower or raise the temperature of absolute zero?

I think it is clear that God has the right to unmake anything he ever made, but as Abraham asked him " Will not the Judge of all the world , do right?"

Nice old chestnuts there ,

Yes God can make any size of rock and can lift any size of rock, since he is presumed to be the one who made all the rocks that there are, and placed them all in their orbits he has done precicely this . There is no contradiction in two of his powers both being limitless, one of his powers need not limit another.

God is the designer of every complexity , so is the Lock question asking if God could design something so complex that even he could not understand it?No the power to understand complexity does not limit itself.

Can God lower or raise the tempreture of absolute Zero? That is more like a profound question.We understand absolute zero to be a complete absense of heat , now do we beleive in negative energy or don't we? If there is such a thing as negative energy then there is no limit to how much lower than zero a tempreture could go..

Even deeper can God change the nature of zero? Can an absense of something become less or more than an absense and can an empty get more or less empty ? I like this question I don't have an answer ready .

[Xavier_Onassis]

The fact is, that the difficulty here is that omnipotence itself cannot exist. If God in omnipotent, he can make a rock too heavy to lift. All of us can make things to heavy for us to lift, other than in pieces.

Then there is the bit where they say that God can see into the future because he somehow exists outside of time, or lives everywhere and always simultaneously. But again, this is impossible. Time applies to everyone, and it goes only forward.

We can be pretty sure that we cannot travel backward in time, because there is no evidence that we are visited by beings from the future. There is no evidence of this ever having happened anywhere. We cannot visit the future either, because if this were possible, we would already have been visited by people from the past.

I rather like the Star Trek New Generation idea of God as a being from the Q Continuum. It certainly makes more logical sense than the Bible.

[Plane]

The fact is, that the difficulty here is that omnipotence itself cannot exist. If God in omnipotent, he can make a rock too heavy to lift. All of us can make things to heavy for us to lift, other than in pieces.

 

I can make a rock too heavy for myself to lift, six bags of cement ought to just about do it. Given enough cement I could make a rock too heavy for the worlds best crane to lift.

But I am not God , what does "create a rock " mean for the creator of the whole Earth? and what does "Lift" mean for the moveing force that set Jupiter into its orbit of the Sun , set the sun on its orbit of the Milky Way and set the Milky way on its course across the universe?

Haveing no limit on the power to lift is not a limit on the power to create. I imagine the ultimate heavy rock to be the mass of the singlularity that started the Universe at the time of the big bang, the singlularity was small in size and dense , it had within it all of the mass of the entire universe , this represents an ultimately large rock.

The mass of the universe must have exerted a massive gravity , yet somehow enough energy was applied to smear this mass across the large space of the universe at a high speed.This would represent the ultimate lift. It is miraculous to imagine that the mass was created and also a miracle that the mass was seaparated from its own gravity .

Now if you want a bigger rock that all of the universe and a bigger lift than spreading it out from its own center at better than lightspeed , you are merely being petulant .

[Plane]

I rather like the Star Trek New Generation idea of God as a being from the Q Continuum. It certainly makes more logical sense than the Bible.

This is the Q continuoum.