Argument from Non-belief

[Rob]

Premise 1: God is Omnipotent
Premise 2: God is Omni Benevolent
Conclusion 1: Given premise 2 god loves humanity and wants everyone to be saved
Conclusion 2: Given premise 1&2 and conclusion 1 it is within god’s power to save everyone and it is god’s will to save everyone
Premise 3: There are those who do not believe and thus are not saved.
Conclusion 3: Given conclusion 2 and Premise 3 god does not exist.

How do you think this line or reasoning holds up?

[Twiglet]

I think the apparant contradictions from which you draw your logical conclusions should be construed as a test of faith. Of course.

[Lion IRC]

Hi ScienceRob,
Benevolence on the part of God consists in giving people free will to choose their own happiness.
I have heard many atheists say they dont want to "be saved". Hitler, satan, PZ Myers, none of these would want to live under Gods rule and a benevolent and just God would never force theists to spend eternity listening to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens going on and on and on and on like broken records.
You need to go back to your theology drawing board.
Sorry.
Lion (IRC)

[Chinaski]

Hitler, satan

Were not atheists,

God would never force theists to spend eternity listening to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens going on and on and on and on like broken records.

Heaven's that limited, is it?

[Feck]

I think Satan and Stalin got a bit confused in that post If we add Santa we have a trinty OOOOOH spooky !!!

[Animavore]

Benevolence on the part of God consists in giving people free will to choose their own happiness.

Thanks God. That's great Just don't get pissed off and burn me when I die because I chose the life I did.


Oh... wait.

I have heard many atheists say they dont want to "be saved". Hitler, satan, PZ Myers, none of these would want to live under Gods rule and a benevolent and just God would never force theists to spend eternity listening to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens going on and on and on and on like broken records.

As long as I don't have to listen to D'Souza and Boteach go on and on like a broken record about how Hitler is an atheist I don't care.

You need to go back to your theology drawing board.

Why is his made up theology any different to anyone else's?

[Animavore]

Premise 1: God is Omnipotent
Premise 2: God is Omni Benevolent
Conclusion 1: Given premise 2 god loves humanity and wants everyone to be saved
Conclusion 2: Given premise 1&2 and conclusion 1 it is within god’s power to save everyone and it is god’s will to save everyone
Premise 3: There are those who do not believe and thus are not saved.
Conclusion 3: Given conclusion 2 and Premise 3 god does not exist.

How do you think this line or reasoning holds up?

Reasoning?
You're trying too hard. Remember that you're not obliged to disprove God any more than the Pope is obliged to disprove Shiva.

[Hermit]

How do you think this line or reasoning holds up?

Are you intending to reason with believers?

[Samuel]

Premise 1: God is Omnipotent
Premise 2: God is Omni Benevolent
Conclusion 1: Given premise 2 god loves humanity and wants everyone to be saved
Conclusion 2: Given premise 1&2 and conclusion 1 it is within god’s power to save everyone and it is god’s will to save everyone
Premise 3: There are those who do not believe and thus are not saved.
Conclusion 3: Given conclusion 2 and Premise 3 god does not exist.

How do you think this line or reasoning holds up?

I see many problems here, off the top of my head:
- to conclude that benevolence would mean that everyone must be saved
- the word "saved" is too loaded
- premise three has no grounds to say that non-believers will not be saved
- premise one: it might very well be impossible for "anything" to be "omnipotent"

[GrahamH]

Premise 1: God is Omnipotent
Premise 2: God is Omni Benevolent
Conclusion 1: Given premise 2 god loves humanity and wants everyone to be saved
Conclusion 2: Given premise 1&2 and conclusion 1 it is within god’s power to save everyone and it is god’s will to save everyone
Premise 3: There are those who do not believe and thus are not saved.
Conclusion 3: Given conclusion 2 and Premise 3 god does not exist.

How do you think this line or reasoning holds up?

I see many problems here, off the top of my head:
- to conclude that benevolence would mean that everyone must be saved
- the word "saved" is too loaded
- premise three has no grounds to say that non-believers will not be saved
- premise one: it might very well be impossible for "anything" to be "omnipotent"

P1 is a definition.
P2 is debatable, but 'salvation' is defined to be a good thing, so an omnibenevolent god would want to ensure that good thing for all, if possible.
P3 is a Christian doctrine - only believers in Jesus get salvation. Therefore the argument applies only to the Christian concept of God.

Formulating logical arguments for or against the existence of this or that god is illogical.

[Lion IRC]

Hitler, satan

Were not atheists,

Hi Chinaski,
I put a full stop at the end of the "dont want to be saved" sentence on purpose.
But I thank you for the chance to clarify my belief that Hitler and satan both fall into the same category of "why can't I be you?" theism.
It is like the type of theism which says..."give me that sword Allah, you're not using it right."
Lion (IRC)