Additionally I would also suggest that you're basing your assumption that there is not some ultimate good that can come from suffering and all the other negatives in the world.

So actually your points did not even seperate omnibenevolent and omniscient since we can not venture to guess the end result. 

I defined the gods, Phil and Judy, that I was going to disprove. I showed that they cannot exist as I defined them (omnipotent, omnicient, omnibenevolent, AND creator of the universe). Thus, I proved they don't exist. I am not trying to prove anything about any other gods, just the two that I defined.

Which brings me to my second post where I you applied your own interpretation of suffering.  Your omnibenevolent god could have a different interpretation.   Perhaps he sees them as good things.

But even with that aside by disproving that the gods can not exist under those strict circumstances does not mean that they do not exist.  It only implies that they don't have those characteristics.  You can not prove that they don't exist.

That's like saying that if you described me wearing a blue shirt, but I was not wearing a blue shirt, that I would not exist.

By your definition of whether those gods exist under your very strict definition, you would be also right to say that I don't exist because I'm not wearing a blue shirt and your description explicitly stated blue shirt.

I appreciate your effort to disprove god, and I think that everything you state was fine right up until your last conclusion which reminds me a lot of the type of argument that theists use to prove god.

Right, so you agree with Jackal then, Tarpan. Jackal is not saying, "No Gods exist." Jackal is saying, "No Gods exist who fit these definitions." That's fine. It's a logical and valid argument.

 If Jackal defined a Tarpan as necessarily wearing a pink bunny suit, then if you're not wearing a pink bunny suit, you are not a Tarpan that Jackal is referring to. Hence, you need not worry about not existing. (You can still be a Tarpan, but NOT a Tarpan as she has defined it. If Tarpans were typically defined as wearing pink bunny suits, though, then your existence would probably be in question... )

Those definitions (of Gods, not Tarpans), by the way, are not arbitrary. They are what classical philosophers mainly concern themselves with. 

Have you seen the Samuel Thomas Poling vs Dr. Paul Herrick debate hosted here at RRS, wave? It sounds a lot like what you're trying to do. I saw it as Dr. Herrick proving that a God could exist, and that definition of God was so loose and weak that his proof essentially lead to nothing. I'm not suggesting yours will, just that you should watch that in case you fall into any of the same types of pitfalls that he did (basically just redefining everything so that the end result is a proof of nothing that matters).

You are allowed to disagree with the premises. That doesn't make them false, nor does it make the conclusion invalid or untrue. I know you're playing devil's advocate, and that's a good thing. I think if Jackal wants to take it and turn it into an essay of some kind, it's a good idea to have a lot of arguments against it handled early on.

I guess Jackal's point is simply that if we define the typical philosopher's God the way that it is typically defined, then there is a contradiction and so that God cannot exist.  Jackal's definition of omnibenevolent is certainly not erroneous. We can take it from the definition of benevolent from dictionary.com:

Now take that and raise it to an infinitely high power, or something, and you have omnibenevolence. I found it (at least) to be completely reasonable to say, "desiring to help others" is close enough to, "dislikes suffering" that it makes no big difference.  You can't really say, "Suffering could have a positive outcome, we can't know whether or not it does", because we can only know things to the extent that we do anyway. We can only work with what we have, and I think that's all Jackal was doing. Interestingly, omnibenevolent is apparently not a real word, according to said dictionary. It's just a word used in the philosophy of religion, according to the encyclopedia.com entry.

Good point. Let me add something I discussed in the comments section of the post. I'll agree that some suffering may be beneficial. However, considering the suffering in this wold - the genocide in Darfur, the Holocaust, child slavory, child soldiers - I cannot believe that a god with infinite goodwill and unlimited power would knowingly create a world that would lead to such things. To change my mind, you'll have to show me something that a god like Judy would want that it could not get without genocide-scale suffering. (The bold characteristics are garunteed by the definitions of Phil and Judy.)

I don't think any of the Judaism-based religions could claim omnibenevolence for their gods when their common scriptures are examined. However, I think a lot of moderate theists believe in something like Phil or Judy.

To lend support to this, I am surrounded by "moderate" Christians who believe in exactly Judy. Indeed, it seems like they are more fundies who happen to have changed what the definition of God is as stated in the Bible, and so have come to Judy through "divine inspiration", as it were.

The commenter Daggerclaw on the original blog post has been trying to justify the existance of suffering in the world. That line of questioning (commenting) is far from exhaustive, so I took it upon myself to address the usual justifications for evil in this context: suffering in the Phil/Judy universe. Those justifications and my rebuttals are posted here.

What could possibly compell an all-powerful being to do something it does not want to do? Phil didn't have to create a universe in which things have to die. Phil didn't have to create a universe in which things die in pain. Phil didn't have to create a universe at all. I'm taking a monotheistic standpoint, as is traditional when dealing with Phil. So Phil is the only thing in existance. There is absolutely nothing to compell Phil to do anything other than its own wishes.

More ... 

"Omnibenevolence is the property of being perfectly good, attributed by some religions to God. The word omnibenevolence may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, and so on, depending on precisely what is taken to be good." (definition found online)

The important part of this definition is "what is taken to be good".  You are essentially claiming that suffering never leads to good therefore an omnibenevolent entity would never willingly cause suffering. 

If a maximally good universe must contain no suffering then yes, you are correct. It is possible that suffering must exist for maximal good to be acheived. It is only humans that insist that it be absent. This is why I don't adhere to absolutes. A god could be all powerful and all knowing, but as soon as you introduce omnibenevolent it creates a crisis of context. Phil is compelled to maximize good, but for what or whom? Perhaps Phil created humans as feed stock for another life form and we aren't "ripe" yet. So then Phil's concern for our suffering only goes as far as how it effects the quality of the product. I think I am again departing from the classic idea of god, but I've always thought it extraordinarily arrogant for humans to place themselves on the top of the heap when it comes to god's priorities.

I also think that to strengthen your proof you should make the compulsion of omnibenevolence to maximize good explicit and include a statement that a maximally good universe contains no suffering.

Does anyone have a response to this? Or does it stand?

Only quibbles with the defintions. And only because this is being presented as a rigorous proof. 

Definitions:

• Phil - the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe.

• Omnipotent - having the power to do anything logically conceivable

• Omniscient - knowing everything conceivably knowable

• Omnibenevolent - characterized by perfect and complete goodness, loving and caring for all creatures, abhorring evil actions

• Suffering - the experience of physical or emotional pain in a creature that can register pain. This is at least human beings, and may include all vertebrates.

• Evil (noun) - including but not limited to the knowing creation of unnecessary suffering

    "unecessary" leaves open the possibility of necessary suffering.

Can you suggest definitions you would accept?

Imagine a woman called Judy with two sons, Stan and Adam. Stan is fully grown and estranged from the family. Adam is 4 years old and spends all of his time in the nursery. One day Judy puts a cookie in the nursery and tells Adam not to eat it. Adam has lots of other snacks to eat, so he leaves the cookie alone. Judy goes into the living room to watch her soap operas. Mid way though As the World Turns, Judy hears Stan come into the house. She’s kicked him out, and she could get him to leave, but she doesn’t bother. She hears Stan go into the nursery. She hears Stan telling Adam to eat the cookie. Adam doesn’t know Stan, but Stan is an adult right here telling him to eat the cookie. Adam’s willpower crumbles under Stan’s pressure, and he eats the cookie. Judy continues watching her soaps, and Stan leaves. When her soaps are over, Judy goes into the nursery. She sees that Stan fed Adam the cookie, and on questioning Adam admits to what happened. Judy flies into a rage, tearing the place apart. Then she sends Adam to the orphanage because he doesn‘t deserve to live with her anymore.

This is unacceptable parenting when it is done by a human. If a human could do better, a wise and loving god would do better.

Abrahamic theists believe that free will hasn't created suffering in heaven. If Phil wanted to make beings with free will without making suffering, Phil could do it. See the Proof II part 3 from the original blog post for details.

It does not follow that a "disabled" god would still be able to create the universe. If the disabled god is still able to create the same universe then where is the disability? 

Yeah, I take it as a reductio ad absurdum argument. Since the same logic was used to prove a contradictory result, then they're both absurdities. My comical argument doesn't disprove God, it just proves that the logic used in the ontological argument is absurd. Still, it's my favorite logical argument 

Well, if you posted the ontological argument, you'd be nuked for your stupidity. However, anyone who has read The God Delusion has seen the argument I posted. It's an argument to point out the absurdity of another argument.

I'm not sure what a maximally super person is. The definitions given imply knowledge and abilites which would be unobtainable by humans. This entity would not be a person, in any human way. And the definitions are not an attempt to discard anthropomorphisms. All I *have* is a human perspective. What else can I offer but athropomorhpisms? These definitions are to only eliminate the logical absurdities that arise when invoking infinite knowledge and power.

The value of this entity is hard to place. Are we more valuable than a chimpanzee? A dolphin? A lemur, cat, dog, mouse, ameoba? As a race we regularly place our "value" on the top of the heap among known species. Wouldn't such a "super being" be of far more value than us?

The concept of worship is flawed in my mind. God certainly does not need me to stand around with my hands in the air singing about his/her greatness. Such an entity's awareness would encompass such a fact.

Such an entity could conceivably be good, evil or indifferent. It would seem hubris to assume we are its equal.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 

We will have to agree to disagree for I believe that, in principle, humanity's capacity for knowledge is finite and that the sum total of what is knowable exceeds that capacity.

OK. Person then.

I'm not sure I can agree on this, but I understand your position. Do we offer the same level of respect to a chimpanzee? Or a mouse? Since both are used in scientific reasearch considered unethical for humans, a consensus would seem to think otherwise. Would an entity so far above us as we are to a mouse be compelled to respect us as equals?

Interestingly, there are biblical references that suggest groveling before god is displeasing to him/her. I think present day worship is a perversion of whatever it should be.

I think the concept of value has a lot of pitfalls. The domestic dog owes us alot. It would not fare well without us. It is not an equal partnership. We could easily to an entire thread on just this. And "more able" seems relative. I think we would interact differently with an entity that is marginally beyond us as opposed to one that is exponentially beyond us.