If a God Concept is Omnipotent

Religions > Atheism > If a God Concept is Omnipotent

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 8

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"FreeThink"
Date:	29 Jan 2005 05:31:36 AM
Object:	If a God Concept is Omnipotent

If a god concept is omnipotent then could it do the logically
impossible? That sure would throw a wrench in our philosophical and
theological gearboxes wouldn't it?
If so, shouldn't you Atheists and Theists give Agnosticism some serious
consideration?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	04 Feb 2005 06:52:52 PM

Daniel T. wrote:

In article <1107529264.118003.86780@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Enkidu wrote:

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in news:postmaster-
376CDF.22472003022005@news1.east.earthlink.net:

(snip)

However, it remains a good question, and one still unanswered,

whoever

first asked it.

--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Attributed to Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.

I agree it's a good question; it's passed the test of longevity so

must resonate with lots of people. But the argument rests on a
fuzziness that obscures the real issue IMO. There are lots of ways

prevent evil. For example, if God didn't create any sentient beings

all there'd be no evil, but I would argue that such a world without
evil isn't preferebale to the actual world *with* evil. And there's

the

point: if God prevents evil by a method that would make things

worse

than the actual world, that would not be the sign of a benevolent
God--in fact the benevolent God would keep the world we have rather
than choose to make things worse. Now the world we have isn't teh

best

possible world, but given our freedom it might be the best world
available for *God* to bring about even though *we* could make

things

better by making better free choices.

That doesn't hold up Keith, sorry. If God is omnipotent, he should be
able to create sentient beings yet no evil...

It seems to me: that's not necessarily the case if the sentient beings
are to have free will. If they are free then they have the power to
choose evil rather than good, and anytime God overrules that choice or
prevents that choice they are not acting freely. In that case the only
way God could prevent evil is by eliminating freedom and that wouldn't
necessarily be a better thing to do that not preventing evil. How does
that argument not hold up?

and he should be able to
prevent evil by a method that does not make things worse than the

actual

world.

Not if allowing freedom means that we will sometimes do evil, it seems
to me.

The only way to defeat the argument is to deny its unstated premiss.
Deny that evil exists. I have also met people that are quite happy to
concede that God is able to defeat evil but unwilling to do so, and

they

have Bible verses to back them up! The Bible explicitly states that

God

created evil, so I don't know why there is so much confusion over

this.
The statement "God created evil" was a prophetic statement, not a
philosophical statement, and IMO the point was that without God nothing
would exist. Evil is the result of free choices by God's creatures, but
if God hadn't created the creatures then they obviously wouldn't be
making any free choices.
keith
.

User: "Daniel T."
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	04 Feb 2005 07:55:42 PM

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

That doesn't hold up Keith, sorry. If God is omnipotent, he should be
able to create sentient beings yet no evil...

But according to the Bible, we *don't* have free will...
If people are evil it is because God has chosen to make them evil (Rom
1:24-28) and caused them to disobey him (Rom 11:32). If they do not
understand God's message it is because he has made their minds dull (Rom
11:8) and caused them to be stubborn (Rom 9:18). God prevents the Gospel
from being preached in certain areas (Act 16:6-7) and he fixes long
before it will happen when a person will be born and when he or she will
die (Act 17:26). Those who were going to be saved were chosen by God
before the beginning of time (ii Tim 1:9 Eph 1:11). If a person has
faith and is thereby saved, their faith comes from God, not from any
effort on their part (Eph 2:9-10). One may ask "If a person can only do
what God predetermines them to do, how can God hold them responsible for
their actions?" The Bible has an answer for this question.
But one of you will say to me: "If this is so, how can God find fault
with anyone? For who can resist God's will?" But who are you, my
friend, to answer God back? A clay pot does not ask the man who made
it: "Why did you make me like this?" After all, the man who makes the
pot has the right to use the clay as he wishes, and to make two pots
from one lump of clay, one for special occasions and one for ordinary
use. And the same is true of what God has done (Rom 9:19-22).
So apparently in Christianity a person's life and destiny are due purely
to the whim of God and as mere humans we have no right to complain about
what God has decided for us. The idea that we are all predetermined is
quite consistent with the idea of an all-knowing God but it makes
nonsense of the concept of making an effort to do good or avoid evil.
However, if you don't accept the above then look at it this way: God has
free will and never chooses to do evil, therefore He could have created
us with free will yet not interested in doing evil just like Him. IE, He
doesn't have to overrule anyone's choices.
Of course if you are claiming that it is impossible to have free will
and yet never choose evil, then God looses His free will. :-/
That's how the argument doesn't hold up.

and he should be able to
prevent evil by a method that does not make things worse than the
actual
world.

Not if allowing freedom means that we will sometimes do evil, it seems
to me.

Again, you are assuming that God is not powerful enough to create
freedom without evil. Why put such a limit on God?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	05 Feb 2005 12:45:15 AM

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

That doesn't hold up Keith, sorry. If God is omnipotent, he

should be

able to create sentient beings yet no evil...

It seems to me: that's not necessarily the case if the sentient

beings

are to have free will. If they are free then they have the power to
choose evil rather than good, and anytime God overrules that choice

prevents that choice they are not acting freely. In that case the

only

way God could prevent evil is by eliminating freedom and that

wouldn't

necessarily be a better thing to do that not preventing evil. How

does

that argument not hold up?

But according to the Bible, we *don't* have free will...

If people are evil it is because God has chosen to make them evil

(Rom

1:24-28) and caused them to disobey him (Rom 11:32). If they do not
understand God's message it is because he has made their minds dull

(Rom

11:8) and caused them to be stubborn (Rom 9:18). God prevents the

Gospel

from being preached in certain areas (Act 16:6-7) and he fixes long
before it will happen when a person will be born and when he or she

will

die (Act 17:26). Those who were going to be saved were chosen by God
before the beginning of time (ii Tim 1:9 Eph 1:11). If a person has
faith and is thereby saved, their faith comes from God, not from any
effort on their part (Eph 2:9-10). One may ask "If a person can only

what God predetermines them to do, how can God hold them responsible

for

their actions?" The Bible has an answer for this question.

I don't agree with your take on Romans; Paul wasn't talking about free
will as per philosophers but rather something else, I'd say.
In Romans 1:24-28, Paul wrote "Therefore God gave them over in the
sinful desires of their hearts...". This seems to me to have God
"inflicting" on people the very thing that they sinfully want, which
seems to me to *imply* freedom.
Romans 9:18, Paul wrote "Therefore God has mercy on whom Therefore God
has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants
to harden". But the passage doesn't explain what is meant by
"hardening". A stubborn person is a person who will not give up his
will easily, strengthening a stubborn person doesn't imply making him
act *contrary* to his will, it doesn't seem to me.
Romans 11:32 also doesn't imply God overriding a person's will, it
doesn't seem to me. It says "For God has bound all men over to
disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all". But Paul writes
that we are willfully sinful people, the disobedience he is referring
to is *our* disobedience. If Paul was saying we were merely puppets in
God's hand then our actions wouldn't *be* disobedience because by
definition obedience and disobedience have to be our decisions. It is
interesting that this passage is often cited by those of us who lean
toward universal reconciliation/salvation; God imprisons ALL in
disobedience so he CAN have mercy on us ALL.
Being chosen from the "beginning of time" doesn't conflict with free
will at all IMO. Being omniscient, God would know how each potential
created being would freely act in whatever potential circumstances said
person might find himself. God chose to create *us*--you and me both,
and everybody else, I'd say--knowing how we'd freely behave. The
Christians Paul was addressing were chosen because God knew they would
freely decide what they decided.

But one of you will say to me: "If this is so, how can God find

fault

with anyone? For who can resist God's will?" But who are you, my
friend, to answer God back? A clay pot does not ask the man who

made

it: "Why did you make me like this?" After all, the man who makes

the

pot has the right to use the clay as he wishes, and to make two

pots

from one lump of clay, one for special occasions and one for

ordinary

use. And the same is true of what God has done (Rom 9:19-22).

So apparently in Christianity a person's life and destiny are due

purely

to the whim of God and as mere humans we have no right to complain

about

what God has decided for us. The idea that we are all predetermined

quite consistent with the idea of an all-knowing God but it makes
nonsense of the concept of making an effort to do good or avoid evil.

I don't think that follows. The "pot"--the created person--has
properties, among them our freedom. We often use our freedom to do bad
things and bad results come from that. We have no right to complain
that God ought not have made us free, says Paul, and he makes an
argument to that effect. I note that Paul doesn't say that God *made*
the person's decisions for him. It seems to me that paul was addressing
the objection that if jesus really was the messiah, God should have
prevented the Jews from rejecting him since (they might argue) he
certainly could have done so.

However, if you don't accept the above then look at it this way: God

has

free will and never chooses to do evil, therefore He could have

created

us with free will yet not interested in doing evil just like Him. IE,

doesn't have to overrule anyone's choices.

I don't think that follows either. In my opinion this is what is
necessary for a person to be free wrt some potential action A:
1. If the person wants to do A then he does A; if he wants to refrain
from A he refrains from A.
2. His wanting wrt A isn't programmed into him, it's somehow part of
who he is, sort of like how the property of having 4 sides is part of
what a square is.

From (2), it wouldn't be freedom if God simply decreed that we only

want to do good. God is free because God's will satisfies the two
conditions above IMO, and because he only wants to do good, that's all
he does.

Of course if you are claiming that it is impossible to have free will
and yet never choose evil, then God looses His free will. :-/

I don't claim that. But if God guarantees that we *will* only choose
good then we aren't free, IMO.

That's how the argument doesn't hold up.

and he should be able to
prevent evil by a method that does not make things worse than the
actual
world.

Not if allowing freedom means that we will sometimes do evil, it

seems

to me.

Again, you are assuming that God is not powerful enough to create
freedom without evil. Why put such a limit on God?

It's not a limit on God, it is IMO a part of the idea of freedom that
we free people get to decide whether we do evil; God doesn't decide it.
If God *programmed* us to only do good then our actions wouldn't be
free IMO.
see you later
Keith
.

User: "Daniel T."
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	05 Feb 2005 09:23:40 AM

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

How about some simple questions. Can you surprise God? I.E. can you
choose something he wasn't expecting you to choose? Can God surprise
Himself? If no, then how do you have free will? How does he?

However, if you don't accept the above then look at it this way: God
has
free will and never chooses to do evil, therefore He could have
created
us with free will yet not interested in doing evil just like Him. IE,
He doesn't have to overrule anyone's choices.

I don't think that follows either. In my opinion this is what is
necessary for a person to be free wrt some potential action A:

1. If the person wants to do A then he does A; if he wants to refrain
from A he refrains from A.

2. His wanting wrt A isn't programmed into him, it's somehow part of
who he is, sort of like how the property of having 4 sides is part of
what a square is.

I'm not denying the above. Let me ask you directly: Does God have free
will? Does he choose to do evil?

From (2), it wouldn't be freedom if God simply decreed that we only

want to do good. God is free because God's will satisfies the two
conditions above IMO, and because he only wants to do good, that's all
he does.

Of course if you are claiming that it is impossible to have free will

and yet never choose evil, then God looses His free will. :-/

I don't claim that. But if God guarantees that we *will* only choose
good then we aren't free, IMO.

Then God isn't free. After all, you guarantee that He *will* only choose
good.
You see the problem you are having is that you are begging the question.
You say that the fact we choose evil is proof that we have free will.
This would mean that anyone who *doesn't* choose evil therefore has no
free will, including God and every *good* person in the world.
Do you really believe that if you only choose to do the right thing,
every-time, that you would not have free will?

and he should be able to
prevent evil by a method that does not make things worse than the
actual
world.

Not if allowing freedom means that we will sometimes do evil, it
seems
to me.

Again, you are assuming that God is not powerful enough to create
freedom without evil. Why put such a limit on God?

I'm not saying God should take away peoples choice. Are you saying that
He can't make us more wise so that we make better choices?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	06 Feb 2005 10:04:14 AM

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

How about some simple questions. Can you surprise God? I.E. can you
choose something he wasn't expecting you to choose? Can God surprise
Himself? If no, then how do you have free will? How does he?

IMO God can't be fooled. IMO that's not necessary for us to be free
(nor for God to be free).

(snip)

I don't think that follows either. In my opinion this is what is
necessary for a person to be free wrt some potential action A:

1. If the person wants to do A then he does A; if he wants to

refrain

from A he refrains from A.

2. His wanting wrt A isn't programmed into him, it's somehow part

who he is, sort of like how the property of having 4 sides is part

what a square is.

I'm not denying the above. Let me ask you directly: Does God have

free

will? Does he choose to do evil?

I do believe God has free will. IMO He doesn't choose to do evil;
that's because he is perfectly good so he doesn't choose to do evil.
(snip)

Of course if you are claiming that it is impossible to have free

will

and yet never choose evil, then God looses His free will. :-/

I don't claim that. But if God guarantees that we *will* only

choose

good then we aren't free, IMO.

Then God isn't free. After all, you guarantee that He *will* only

choose

good.

I need to clear up which construal of "guarantee" I meant. There's the
"I guarantee that the Green Bay Packers won the 1st two Super Bowls"
where you are expressing your confidence in your knowledge. Then
there's the "Putting this device on your widget machine guarantees that
it'll never slip", in other words the part *causes* the machine to
always funciton properly. I am saying the 2nd kind of divine guarantee
is incompatible with free will. The gurantee I would give that God only
does good is the 1st kind of guarantee.

You see the problem you are having is that you are begging the

question.

You say that the fact we choose evil is proof that we have free will.
This would mean that anyone who *doesn't* choose evil therefore has

free will, including God and every *good* person in the world.

IMO I didn't offer any *proof* that we have free will; I take itas a
given that we have free will. I was arguing that our freedom is
compatible with God's knowing in advance what we will do.

Do you really believe that if you only choose to do the right thing,
every-time, that you would not have free will?

IMO that would NOT mean we weren't free. But since we are free the fact
is we will sometimes choose to do evil, IMO.
(snip)

Again, you are assuming that God is not powerful enough to create
freedom without evil. Why put such a limit on God?

It's not a limit on God, it is IMO a part of the idea of freedom

that

we free people get to decide whether we do evil; God doesn't decide

it.

If God *programmed* us to only do good then our actions wouldn't be
free IMO.

I'm not saying God should take away peoples choice. Are you saying

that

He can't make us more wise so that we make better choices?

IMO sin isn't about not being wise enough. Since is a matter of the
will, not the intellect.
Keith
.

User: "Daniel T."
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	06 Feb 2005 11:49:14 AM

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

How about some simple questions. Can you surprise God? I.E. can you
choose something he wasn't expecting you to choose? Can God surprise
Himself? If no, then how do you have free will? How does he?

IMO God can't be fooled. IMO that's not necessary for us to be free
(nor for God to be free).

Think about that, you know you have free will because you find yourself
wondering "what am I going to do here." If you are in a maze and trying
to find a way out, at each intersection you make a choice, you are free
to go one of several different directions. Between the intersections
however, you are constrained as is your free will.
God never has a choice, he is constrained by His own knowledge.

I don't think that follows either. In my opinion this is what is
necessary for a person to be free wrt some potential action A:

1. If the person wants to do A then he does A; if he wants to
refrain
from A he refrains from A.

2. His wanting wrt A isn't programmed into him, it's somehow part
of
who he is, sort of like how the property of having 4 sides is part
of
what a square is.

I'm not denying the above. Let me ask you directly: Does God have
free will? Does he choose to do evil?

I do believe God has free will. IMO He doesn't choose to do evil;
that's because he is perfectly good so he doesn't choose to do evil.

Then you admit that choosing to do evil is *not* evidence of free will.
If none of us ever chose to do evil, we could still have free will. Why
then could God make us that way? With free will, but not interested in
choosing evil, just like Him?

Of course if you are claiming that it is impossible to have free

will

and yet never choose evil, then God looses His free will. :-/

I don't claim that. But if God guarantees that we *will* only

choose

good then we aren't free, IMO.

Then God isn't free. After all, you guarantee that He *will* only

choose

good.

So when God guarantees that we are all sinners, because after all he
made us that way, which kind of guarantee is it?
Both versions of the word apply to Him don't they. He both knows what
you will do, and has made you so you will do it.

You see the problem you are having is that you are begging the
question.
You say that the fact we choose evil is proof that we have free will.

This would mean that anyone who *doesn't* choose evil therefore has
no
free will, including God and every *good* person in the world.

IMO I didn't offer any *proof* that we have free will; I take itas a
given that we have free will. I was arguing that our freedom is
compatible with God's knowing in advance what we will do.

Think about this. I asked why God could not have made us such that we
would *choose* to do no evil. You said that if He had done that *then*
we wouldn't have free will. As if the fact that we *do* choose evil on
occasion is a necessary result of free will. Are you backing off of this
statement now?

Do you really believe that if you only choose to do the right thing,
every-time, that you would not have free will?

IMO that would NOT mean we weren't free. But since we are free the fact
is we will sometimes choose to do evil, IMO.

So you accept that God could have created people with free will, who
always choose good. Yet He chose not to do that...
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	06 Feb 2005 02:57:33 PM

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

How about some simple questions. Can you surprise God? I.E. can

you

choose something he wasn't expecting you to choose? Can God

surprise

Himself? If no, then how do you have free will? How does he?

IMO God can't be fooled. IMO that's not necessary for us to be free
(nor for God to be free).

Think about that, you know you have free will because you find

yourself

wondering "what am I going to do here." If you are in a maze and

trying

to find a way out, at each intersection you make a choice, you are

free

to go one of several different directions. Between the intersections
however, you are constrained as is your free will.

God never has a choice, he is constrained by His own knowledge.

I don't see how God's *knowledge* constrains him. When he knows he will
do something there's no constraint because he is doing exactly what he
wants to do, IMO.
(snip)

1. If the person wants to do A then he does A; if he wants to
refrain
from A he refrains from A.

2. His wanting wrt A isn't programmed into him, it's somehow

part

of
who he is, sort of like how the property of having 4 sides is

part

of
what a square is.

I'm not denying the above. Let me ask you directly: Does God have
free will? Does he choose to do evil?

I do believe God has free will. IMO He doesn't choose to do evil;
that's because he is perfectly good so he doesn't choose to do

evil.

Then you admit that choosing to do evil is *not* evidence of free

will.
Admit it? I *embrace* it and kiss it on the lips:-)

If none of us ever chose to do evil, we could still have free will.

Why

then could God make us that way? With free will, but not interested

choosing evil, just like Him?

Because making us so that we only wanted to do what God wanted would be
a violation of (2) above and consequently wouldn't be freedom IMO. I'm
not sure it's even logically possible that God decree that we have the
will he wants, not if one of our essential properties is having the
degree of freedom we have.
(snip)

Then God isn't free. After all, you guarantee that He *will* only

choose

good.

I need to clear up which construal of "guarantee" I meant. There's

the

"I guarantee that the Green Bay Packers won the 1st two Super

Bowls"

where you are expressing your confidence in your knowledge. Then
there's the "Putting this device on your widget machine guarantees

that

it'll never slip", in other words the part *causes* the machine to
always funciton properly. I am saying the 2nd kind of divine

guarantee

is incompatible with free will. The gurantee I would give that God

only

does good is the 1st kind of guarantee.

So when God guarantees that we are all sinners, because after all he
made us that way, which kind of guarantee is it?

I don't believe God *made* us sinners, as if God chose to make us
sinners instead of making us saints. When God says we are sinners (I
don't recall any biblical verses that use the word "guarantee" wrt our
being sinners) he is telling us what he knows, not what he caused IMO.

Both versions of the word apply to Him don't they. He both knows what
you will do, and has made you so you will do it.

IMO God did not cause us to do the sinful things we do; that was our
choice. But I should note: IMO sin isn't really about what actions we
take, but about our attitude wrt those actions.
(snip)

IMO I didn't offer any *proof* that we have free will; I take itas

given that we have free will. I was arguing that our freedom is
compatible with God's knowing in advance what we will do.

Think about this. I asked why God could not have made us such that we
would *choose* to do no evil. You said that if He had done that

*then*

we wouldn't have free will. As if the fact that we *do* choose evil

occasion is a necessary result of free will. Are you backing off of

this

statement now?

Not at all. I am not really saying that our doing evil is a necessary
result of our being free. IMO *we* have the power to do only good
things, so our doing evil isn't a necessary result of our freedom. What
*is* necessary for us to be free is that God not program us to behave.
If God prevents us from doing the evil action we would freely do, then
we are not free wrt that action.
But suppose that my view was that freedom necessarily meant we do evil.
This would not mean that our doing evil is evidence that we are free,
it would just mean that our never doing evil would be evidence
*against* our being free.

Do you really believe that if you only choose to do the right

thing,

every-time, that you would not have free will?

IMO that would NOT mean we weren't free. But since we are free the

fact

is we will sometimes choose to do evil, IMO.

So you accept that God could have created people with free will, who
always choose good. Yet He chose not to do that...

I don't accept that. IMO *we* aren't the people who are free but always
choose good (obviously). If God programmed us so that we only did the
things he wanted us to do, then we'd not be free. Maybe God could have
made a different set of people who *would* only choose good, but you
and I wouldn't be in that set, and I see no reason to suppose that the
world would be a better place if you weren't in it.
see you later
Keith
.

User: "Daniel T."
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	06 Feb 2005 05:51:53 PM

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

Do you really believe that if you only choose to do the right
thing,
every-time, that you would not have free will?

IMO that would NOT mean we weren't free. But since we are free the
fact
is we will sometimes choose to do evil, IMO.

So you accept that God could have created people with free will, who
always choose good. Yet He chose not to do that...

I don't accept that. IMO *we* aren't the people who are free but always
choose good (obviously). If God programmed us so that we only did the
things he wanted us to do, then we'd not be free.

Why is it that if God creates a person who He knows will only choose
good, he is "programming" him, whereas if He creates a person who He
knows will do evil he isn't?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	06 Feb 2005 07:38:08 PM

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

(snip)

So you accept that God could have created people with free will,

who

always choose good. Yet He chose not to do that...

I don't accept that. IMO *we* aren't the people who are free but

always

choose good (obviously). If God programmed us so that we only did

the

things he wanted us to do, then we'd not be free.

Why is it that if God creates a person who He knows will only choose
good, he is "programming" him, whereas if He creates a person who He
knows will do evil he isn't?

I sure didn't mean to imply that. What I am saying is that if God
creates me or you (for example) then since we *aren't* people who would
only do good then it'd be programming us if he *made* it so that we
only did good. If that happened we'd be incapable of behaving morally
since we'd be automatons and automatons don't make moral choices. I
haven't said whether or not God could create some *other* set of people
who do freely choose only to do good but if he did neither you nor I
would be in that set and I see no reason to think the world would be a
better place without you.
keith
.

User: "Daniel T."
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	06 Feb 2005 08:58:08 PM

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

Why is it that if God creates a person who He knows will only choose
good, he is "programming" him, whereas if He creates a person who He
knows will do evil he isn't?

It seems to me that the world *would* be a better place without people
who choose to do evil, why is it you think otherwise; is it simply
because you are one of those people?
In any event, to get back to the subject at hand. You have finally
admitted that God *could* have created a world in which everyone has
free will, yet always chooses to do good. Now lets look at your earlier
argument:

if God prevents evil by a method that would make things worse than
the actual world, that would not be the sign of a benevolent God

It seems that you think a world full of people who choose to do evil
things is better than a world full of people who choose to do good
things. Is that what you mean?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	06 Feb 2005 10:00:29 PM

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

Why is it that if God creates a person who He knows will only

choose

good, he is "programming" him, whereas if He creates a person who

knows will do evil he isn't?

I sure didn't mean to imply that. What I am saying is that if God
creates me or you (for example) then since we *aren't* people who

would

only do good then it'd be programming us if he *made* it so that we
only did good. If that happened we'd be incapable of behaving

morally

since we'd be automatons and automatons don't make moral choices. I
haven't said whether or not God could create some *other* set of

people

who do freely choose only to do good but if he did neither you nor

would be in that set and I see no reason to think the world would

be a

better place without you.

It seems to me that the world *would* be a better place without

people

who choose to do evil, why is it you think otherwise; is it simply
because you are one of those people?

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

(snip)

I sure didn't mean to imply that. What I am saying is that if God
creates me or you (for example) then since we *aren't* people who

would

only do good then it'd be programming us if he *made* it so that we
only did good. If that happened we'd be incapable of behaving

morally

since we'd be automatons and automatons don't make moral choices. I
haven't said whether or not God could create some *other* set of

people

who do freely choose only to do good but if he did neither you nor

would be in that set and I see no reason to think the world would

be a

better place without you.

It seems to me that the world *would* be a better place without

people

who choose to do evil, why is it you think otherwise; is it simply
because you are one of those people?

Maybe it's because *you* are one of those people:-) But the point of my
comment is that unless I have a good reason to think the world *would*
be better without you or me, I have no justification for the claim
that the existence of evil is incomaptible with the existence of a God
with the usual omni-properties. I don't see how you figure that world
that doesn't get to have you as a member is better off just because it
has someone else who *behaves* right.

In any event, to get back to the subject at hand. You have finally
admitted that God *could* have created a world in which everyone has
free will, yet always chooses to do good.

IMO I didn't admit what you think I did. I said:
"I haven't said whether or not God could create some *other* set of
people who do freely choose only to do good..." leaving that as an open
questiom that IMO doesn't change the point of my argument.

Now lets look at your earlier
argument:

if God prevents evil by a method that would make things worse than
the actual world, that would not be the sign of a benevolent God

It seems that you think a world full of people who choose to do evil
things is better than a world full of people who choose to do good
things. Is that what you mean?

I am not speaking so abstractly as that. I am suggesting it was better
that God created the specific set of people he created than if he had
created some other set of people, not because we do better than they
would but because of some other qualities we have.
keith
.

User: "Daniel T."
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 06:38:55 AM

wrote:

I sure didn't mean to imply that. What I am saying is that if God
creates me or you (for example) then since we *aren't* people who
would
only do good then it'd be programming us if he *made* it so that we
only did good. If that happened we'd be incapable of behaving
morally
since we'd be automatons and automatons don't make moral choices. I
haven't said whether or not God could create some *other* set of
people
who do freely choose only to do good but if he did neither you nor
I
would be in that set and I see no reason to think the world would
be a
better place without you.

It seems to me that the world *would* be a better place without
people
who choose to do evil, why is it you think otherwise; is it simply
because you are one of those people?

Do you not want less evil in the world then?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 08:06:05 AM

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

I sure didn't mean to imply that. What I am saying is that if

God

(snip)

It seems to me that the world *would* be a better place without
people
who choose to do evil, why is it you think otherwise; is it

simply

because you are one of those people?

Maybe it's because *you* are one of those people:-) But the point

of my

comment is that unless I have a good reason to think the world

*would*

be better without you or me, I have no justification for the claim
that the existence of evil is incomaptible with the existence of a

God

with the usual omni-properties. I don't see how you figure that

world

that doesn't get to have you as a member is better off just because

has someone else who *behaves* right.

Do you not want less evil in the world then?

GIven the set of people who God placed on this earth, I do indeed want
us to do less evil and more good. But there are ways God could have
made it so there is no evil that would not at all be desirable. For
example, God oculd have not made any sentient beings at all. There'd be
no evil and yet the world would be a poorer place. I guess I am still
standing on this one point: I see no reason to think the wolrd would be
a better place without you.
Keith
.

User: "Daniel T."
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 12:43:52 PM

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

wrote:

It seems to me that the world *would* be a better place without
people
who choose to do evil, why is it you think otherwise; is it
simply
because you are one of those people?

Maybe it's because *you* are one of those people:-) But the point
of my
comment is that unless I have a good reason to think the world
*would*
be better without you or me, I have no justification for the claim
that the existence of evil is incomaptible with the existence of a
God
with the usual omni-properties. I don't see how you figure that
world
that doesn't get to have you as a member is better off just because
it
has someone else who *behaves* right.

Do you not want less evil in the world then?

You keep trying to personalize this and by doing so, introduce the
fallacy of an appeal to personal consequence. However, you have agreed
that God *could* have created sentient beings yet have no evil in the
world at all. You agree that having sentient beings in the world is
good, and that sentient beings that choose good would be better than
sentient beings who don't. However, God did not create such a world,
therefore he does not want to eliminate evil. The only complaint you
seem to have about such a world is that you and I personally would not
exist. I for one am not nearly as selfish as you are, I would be very
sad to think (like you apparently do) that there was a God who felt that
the only way to bring me in the world is if he also brought people like
Ted Bundy and Peter Sutcliffe. Fortunately, I don't believe in such a
God.
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 12:52:40 PM

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-011B31.13434507022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

It seems to me that the world *would* be a better place without
people
who choose to do evil, why is it you think otherwise; is it
simply
because you are one of those people?

Maybe it's because *you* are one of those people:-) But the point
of my
comment is that unless I have a good reason to think the world
*would*
be better without you or me, I have no justification for the claim
that the existence of evil is incomaptible with the existence of a
God
with the usual omni-properties. I don't see how you figure that
world
that doesn't get to have you as a member is better off just because
it
has someone else who *behaves* right.

Do you not want less evil in the world then?

You guys are going around and around. Both of you seem to presume that God
"created" people, as if one day He had a new idea of "people" which He then
manufactured like some kind of machines.
.

User: "Daniel T."
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 06:43:44 PM

"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

You guys are going around and around. Both of you seem to presume that God
"created" people, as if one day He had a new idea of "people" which He then
manufactured like some kind of machines.

The discussion is in the context of the "argument of evil".
1) God exists
2) God can do anything
3) God wants to eliminate evil
4) Evil exists
The above is not sound as it stands, at least one of the premises must
be denied for the others to have any chance of being accepted. I've been
trying to establish which premiss Keith denies.
As far as I can tell, Keith has denied premise (2) saying that God
cannot create him or me *and* eliminate evil at the same time. Keith is
apparently glad that we were created despite the evil that came along
with us as "baggage". The curious thing to me though is that Keith
insists that God is "omnipotent" while denying that God can do anything.
Whatever...
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 09:58:49 PM

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-E75ED4.19434107022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...

"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

GIven the set of people who God placed on this earth, I do indeed want
us to do less evil and more good. But there are ways God could have
made it so there is no evil that would not at all be desirable. For
example, God oculd have not made any sentient beings at all. There'd
be
no evil and yet the world would be a poorer place. I guess I am still
standing on this one point: I see no reason to think the wolrd would
be
a better place without you.

You keep trying to personalize this and by doing so, introduce the
fallacy of an appeal to personal consequence. However, you have agreed
that God *could* have created sentient beings yet have no evil in the
world at all. You agree that having sentient beings in the world is
good, and that sentient beings that choose good would be better than
sentient beings who don't. However, God did not create such a world,
therefore he does not want to eliminate evil. The only complaint you
seem to have about such a world is that you and I personally would not
exist. I for one am not nearly as selfish as you are, I would be very
sad to think (like you apparently do) that there was a God who felt
that
the only way to bring me in the world is if he also brought people like
Ted Bundy and Peter Sutcliffe. Fortunately, I don't believe in such a
God.

You guys are going around and around. Both of you seem to presume that
God
"created" people, as if one day He had a new idea of "people" which He
then
manufactured like some kind of machines.

I agree that those premises cannot all be true. As you know, in another
sub-thread I have been demonstrating quite strenuously that (2) cannot be
unconditionally true. I also question (3), namely that God simply "wants" to
eliminate evil, i.e. all evil under all circumstances for all time and
space. I don't see this taught in any scripture. God sometimes likes to
fight, and there must be an opponent for Him to fight with.

As far as I can tell, Keith has denied premise (2) saying that God
cannot create him or me *and* eliminate evil at the same time. Keith is
apparently glad that we were created despite the evil that came along
with us as "baggage".

That sounds right to me. Nobody, not even God, can do what is
self-contradictory. Free will is incompatible with coerced choices, even if
the coercion is subtle. The defect in a concept such as "a world where
everyone has free will but freely chooses to do only good" is that it sets
up an unbreakable rule, that people ALWAYS choose ONLY good, and hence NEVER
choose evil. Such an unbreakable rule is tyrannical, is it not? So how can
there be "free will" under such circumstances?

The curious thing to me though is that Keith
insists that God is "omnipotent" while denying that God can do anything.

Whatever...

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 07:31:57 PM

Daniel T. wrote:

"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

(snip)

must

be denied for the others to have any chance of being accepted. I've

been

trying to establish which premiss Keith denies.

As far as I can tell, Keith has denied premise (2) saying that God
cannot create him or me *and* eliminate evil at the same time. Keith

apparently glad that we were created despite the evil that came along
with us as "baggage". The curious thing to me though is that Keith
insists that God is "omnipotent" while denying that God can do

anything.
I thought we had agreed that omnipotence doesn't require doing the
logically contradictory; my argument is that the atheological argument
from evil presupposes that omnipotence does require such. The
contradiction is in claiming that God ought to be able to create being
X [where being X is a person who will freely do some evil acts] and
eliminate evil at the same time.
Keith

Whatever...

User: "Daniel T."
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 08:42:41 PM

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

The discussion is in the context of the "argument of evil".

1) God exists
2) God can do anything
3) God wants to eliminate evil
4) Evil exists

The above is not sound as it stands, at least one of the premises
must
be denied for the others to have any chance of being accepted. I've
been
trying to establish which premiss Keith denies.

As far as I can tell, Keith has denied premise (2) saying that God
cannot create him or me *and* eliminate evil at the same time. Keith
is
apparently glad that we were created despite the evil that came along

with us as "baggage". The curious thing to me though is that Keith
insists that God is "omnipotent" while denying that God can do
anything.

I thought we had agreed that omnipotence doesn't require doing the
logically contradictory;

You are the one who puts limits on your God not me.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 09:59:05 PM

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

The discussion is in the context of the "argument of evil".

(snip)

I thought we had agreed that omnipotence doesn't require doing the
logically contradictory;

You are the one who puts limits on your God not me.

Not being able to do the logically contradictory isn't a limit on God,
all it means is that logical contradictions don't mean anything and you
cannot coherently propose that God do one.
Keith
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 10:43:24 PM

In alt.atheism on 7 Feb 2005 19:59:05 -0800,

let us
all know that:

Daniel T. wrote:

wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

The discussion is in the context of the "argument of evil".

(snip)

I thought we had agreed that omnipotence doesn't require doing the
logically contradictory;

You are the one who puts limits on your God not me.

Not being able to do the logically contradictory isn't a limit on God,
all it means is that logical contradictions don't mean anything and you
cannot coherently propose that God do one.

But you try to, keithykins. You want god to create the universe,
which is a logical contradiction.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 09:17:02 PM

In alt.atheism on 7 Feb 2005 17:31:57 -0800,

let us
all know that:

Daniel T. wrote:

"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:

wrote:

(snip)

must

be denied for the others to have any chance of being accepted. I've

been

trying to establish which premiss Keith denies.

As far as I can tell, Keith has denied premise (2) saying that God
cannot create him or me *and* eliminate evil at the same time. Keith

apparently glad that we were created despite the evil that came along

with us as "baggage". The curious thing to me though is that Keith
insists that God is "omnipotent" while denying that God can do

And the notion that god created the universe requires such.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 03:25:47 PM

Chris Devol wrote:

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-011B31.13434507022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

(snip)

God.

You guys are going around and around. Both of you seem to presume

that God

"created" people, as if one day He had a new idea of "people" which

He then

manufactured like some kind of machines.

While I believe that God did indeed create people, in this discussion
we are only speaking hypothetically. In this discussion neither of us
are assuming that God actually exists, much less that he created
people.
Keith
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 03:58:04 PM

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107811547.862659.196620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-011B31.13434507022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

Daniel T. wrote:

keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:

(snip)

God.

You guys are going around and around. Both of you seem to presume

that God

"created" people, as if one day He had a new idea of "people" which

He then

manufactured like some kind of machines.

Yes, I understand that you are speaking hypothetically. That's why I
questioned your hypothesis. In fact, I would like to see the hypothesis
clarified. Precisely what is meant by "creating" people?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 04:29:54 PM

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107811547.862659.196620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

(snip)

You guys are going around and around. Both of you seem to presume

that God

"created" people, as if one day He had a new idea of "people"

which

He then

manufactured like some kind of machines.

While I believe that God did indeed create people, in this

discussion

we are only speaking hypothetically. In this discussion neither of

are assuming that God actually exists, much less that he created
people.

Keith

Yes, I understand that you are speaking hypothetically. That's why I
questioned your hypothesis. In fact, I would like to see the

hypothesis

clarified. Precisely what is meant by "creating" people?

Creating a person would be making it so that a person who didn't
previously exists now does. Are you asking me for a description of the
process? I can't give you that since I ain't God.
keith
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 04:47:48 PM

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107815394.541657.88030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107811547.862659.196620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

(snip)

You guys are going around and around. Both of you seem to presume

that God

"created" people, as if one day He had a new idea of "people"

which

He then

manufactured like some kind of machines.

While I believe that God did indeed create people, in this

discussion

we are only speaking hypothetically. In this discussion neither of

are assuming that God actually exists, much less that he created
people.

Keith

Yes, I understand that you are speaking hypothetically. That's why I
questioned your hypothesis. In fact, I would like to see the

hypothesis

clarified. Precisely what is meant by "creating" people?

Creating a person would be making it so that a person who didn't
previously exists now does. Are you asking me for a description of the
process? I can't give you that since I ain't God.

keith

And by "person" you mean what, exactly? What is a "person" made of?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 06:12:33 PM

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107815394.541657.88030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107811547.862659.196620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

(snip)

Yes, I understand that you are speaking hypothetically. That's why

questioned your hypothesis. In fact, I would like to see the

hypothesis

clarified. Precisely what is meant by "creating" people?

Creating a person would be making it so that a person who didn't
previously exists now does. Are you asking me for a description of

the

process? I can't give you that since I ain't God.

keith

And by "person" you mean what, exactly? What is a "person" made of?

I haven't come up with a good definition of person, but I presume you
and I are persons:-) I don't know what the composition of a person is
either.
keith
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 09:39:23 PM

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107821553.392824.128670@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107815394.541657.88030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107811547.862659.196620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

(snip)

Yes, I understand that you are speaking hypothetically. That's why

questioned your hypothesis. In fact, I would like to see the

hypothesis

clarified. Precisely what is meant by "creating" people?

Creating a person would be making it so that a person who didn't
previously exists now does. Are you asking me for a description of

the

process? I can't give you that since I ain't God.

keith

And by "person" you mean what, exactly? What is a "person" made of?

I haven't come up with a good definition of person, but I presume you
and I are persons:-) I don't know what the composition of a person is
either.

keith

In that case, I respectfully suggest that since the hypothesis that God
"created" people is not clearly defined, the arguments based on it that you
are having with Daniel can not be resolved. :-)
.

User: ""
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 09:55:18 PM

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107821553.392824.128670@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107815394.541657.88030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107811547.862659.196620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

(snip)

Yes, I understand that you are speaking hypothetically. That's

why

questioned your hypothesis. In fact, I would like to see the

hypothesis

clarified. Precisely what is meant by "creating" people?

Creating a person would be making it so that a person who didn't
previously exists now does. Are you asking me for a description

the

process? I can't give you that since I ain't God.

keith

And by "person" you mean what, exactly? What is a "person" made

of?

I haven't come up with a good definition of person, but I presume

you

and I are persons:-) I don't know what the composition of a person

either.

keith

In that case, I respectfully suggest that since the hypothesis that

God

"created" people is not clearly defined, the arguments based on it

that you

are having with Daniel can not be resolved. :-)

maybe not, but I would note that it is logically impossible that every
word you use be non-circularly defined.
Keith
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent	07 Feb 2005 10:10:25 PM

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107834918.690185.323890@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107821553.392824.128670@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107815394.541657.88030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

<keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107811547.862659.196620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Chris Devol wrote:

(snip)

Yes, I understand that you are speaking hypothetically. That's

why

questioned your hypothesis. In fact, I would like to see the

hypothesis

clarified. Precisely what is meant by "creating" people?

Creating a person would be making it so that a person who didn't
previously exists now does. Are you asking me for a description

the

process? I can't give you that since I ain't God.

keith

And by "person" you mean what, exactly? What is a "person" made

of?

I haven't come up with a good definition of person, but I presume

you

and I are persons:-) I don't know what the composition of a person

either.

keith

In that case, I respectfully suggest that since the hypothesis that

God

"created" people is not clearly defined, the arguments based on it

that you

are having with Daniel can not be resolved. :-)

maybe not, but I would note that it is logically impossible that every
word you use be non-circularly defined.

Keith

Well, sure, but if we speak of something being created by God, it must
somehow be distinguished from other things that are not created, but are
eternal. Simply defining "people" as "created" seems a bit too circular.
Do you think that there is - let's call it an "element" - in all organisms
that is not created, but is co-eternal with God?
.