| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"FreeThink" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2005 11:31:36 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: "In my evolving opinion" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
31 Jan 2005 06:56:03 AM |
|
|
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106998296.815510.238490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
: 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?
I responded to this but JJ nicked my post.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
29 Jan 2005 10:47:01 PM |
|
|
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106998296.815510.238490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
If a god concept is omnipotent then could it do the logically
impossible?
No. That's not what "omnipotent" means.
That sure would throw a wrench in our philosophical and
theological gearboxes wouldn't it?
If the "logically impossible" could be done, there would be no wrenches or
gearboxes.
If so, shouldn't you Atheists and Theists give Agnosticism some serious
consideration?
If the "logically impossible" could be done, there would be no consciousness
to "consider" anything with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
30 Jan 2005 11:23:08 AM |
|
|
Chris Devol wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106998296.815510.238490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
If a god concept is omnipotent then could it do the logically
impossible?
No. That's not what "omnipotent" means.
To be sure, the word is not really defined.
When you do define the word, problems show up.
So it gets redefined by theologists.
Example. God is omnibenevolent. He cannot do evil.
Thus there is one thing god cannot do. Evil.
And since he is good,he must do good. He must do
maximum good at all times. Since he must, he canot be omnipotent,
since he is limited by his omnipotence and must act in certain
ways at all times.
Anselm realized this about 1000 CE and the theologians have
been redefining the words omnipotence and free will ever since.
That sure would throw a wrench in our philosophical and
theological gearboxes wouldn't it?
If the "logically impossible" could be done, there would be no wrenches or
gearboxes.
If so, shouldn't you Atheists and Theists give Agnosticism some serious
consideration?
If the "logically impossible" could be done, there would be no
consciousness to "consider" anything with.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
02 Feb 2005 12:09:25 PM |
|
|
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
To be sure, the word is not really defined.
When you do define the word, problems show up.
So it gets redefined by theologists.
Example. God is omnibenevolent. He cannot do evil.
Thus there is one thing god cannot do. Evil.
And since he is good,he must do good. He must do
maximum good at all times. Since he must, he canot be omnipotent,
since he is limited by his omnipotence and must act in certain
ways at all times.
That isn't quite how I understood it. It's not that God cannot do "evil"
but "God is good", i.e. anything God does is "good". In other words, His
omnibenevolence doesn't limit his actions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
03 Feb 2005 09:06:36 AM |
|
|
Daniel T. wrote:
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
To be sure, the word is not really defined.
When you do define the word, problems show up.
So it gets redefined by theologists.
Example. God is omnibenevolent. He cannot do evil.
Thus there is one thing god cannot do. Evil.
And since he is good,he must do good. He must do
maximum good at all times. Since he must, he canot be omnipotent,
since he is limited by his omnipotence and must act in certain
ways at all times.
That isn't quite how I understood it. It's not that God cannot do "evil"
but "God is good", i.e. anything God does is "good". In other words, His
omnibenevolence doesn't limit his actions.
Well, no. That is one way, extreme moral relativism,
but that is not what the classical theologians from Augustine on
accepted.
Which is when the problems set in. They redefined omnipotence
and brushed it under the rug.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
03 Feb 2005 11:43:15 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:cts0rq$qn@library2.airnews.net...
Daniel T. wrote:
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
To be sure, the word is not really defined.
When you do define the word, problems show up.
So it gets redefined by theologists.
Example. God is omnibenevolent. He cannot do evil.
Thus there is one thing god cannot do. Evil.
And since he is good,he must do good. He must do
maximum good at all times. Since he must, he canot be omnipotent,
since he is limited by his omnipotence and must act in certain
ways at all times.
That isn't quite how I understood it. It's not that God cannot do "evil"
but "God is good", i.e. anything God does is "good". In other words, His
omnibenevolence doesn't limit his actions.
Well, no. That is one way, extreme moral relativism,
but that is not what the classical theologians from Augustine on
accepted.
Which is when the problems set in. They redefined omnipotence
and brushed it under the rug.
So, how do you think "omnipotence" was defined "originally"?
I have never heard any other definition than something like "able to do all
that can be done", or, "having power over all things that exist". I have
never seen a definition that includes the ability to do what is
self-contradictory, such as making a square circle, or making a cat that is
both dead and alive at the same time and in the same way, or making a free
will that is in bondage, so that it cannot freely choose to do evil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
03 Feb 2005 02:26:48 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
To be sure, the word is not really defined.
When you do define the word, problems show up.
So it gets redefined by theologists.
Example. God is omnibenevolent. He cannot do evil.
Thus there is one thing god cannot do. Evil.
And since he is good,he must do good. He must do
maximum good at all times. Since he must, he canot be omnipotent,
since he is limited by his omnipotence and must act in certain
ways at all times.
That isn't quite how I understood it. It's not that God cannot do "evil"
but "God is good", i.e. anything God does is "good". In other words, His
omnibenevolence doesn't limit his actions.
Well, no. That is one way, extreme moral relativism,
but that is not what the classical theologians from Augustine on
accepted.
Which is when the problems set in. They redefined omnipotence
and brushed it under the rug.
So, how do you think "omnipotence" was defined "originally"?
I have never heard any other definition than something like "able to do all
that can be done", or, "having power over all things that exist". I have
never seen a definition that includes the ability to do what is
self-contradictory, such as making a square circle, or making a cat that is
both dead and alive at the same time and in the same way, or making a free
will that is in bondage, so that it cannot freely choose to do evil.
It's nice to say that God can *only* do what "can be done", but then we
are left with the question, what can be done?
Do you mean that He can only do what we, based on our current level of
technology think is feasible? Surely he is not limited by what we know.
You you simply saying that He cannot do the logically impossible?
Wouldn't that imply that logic is more powerful than God? By saying that
He has "power of all things that exist" aren't you saying He has power
over logic, or are you saying that logic doesn't exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
03 Feb 2005 07:09:16 PM |
|
|
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-5ED1E6.09262503022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
To be sure, the word is not really defined.
When you do define the word, problems show up.
So it gets redefined by theologists.
Example. God is omnibenevolent. He cannot do evil.
Thus there is one thing god cannot do. Evil.
And since he is good,he must do good. He must do
maximum good at all times. Since he must, he canot be omnipotent,
since he is limited by his omnipotence and must act in certain
ways at all times.
That isn't quite how I understood it. It's not that God cannot do
"evil"
but "God is good", i.e. anything God does is "good". In other words,
His
omnibenevolence doesn't limit his actions.
Well, no. That is one way, extreme moral relativism,
but that is not what the classical theologians from Augustine on
accepted.
Which is when the problems set in. They redefined omnipotence
and brushed it under the rug.
So, how do you think "omnipotence" was defined "originally"?
I have never heard any other definition than something like "able to do
all
that can be done", or, "having power over all things that exist". I have
never seen a definition that includes the ability to do what is
self-contradictory, such as making a square circle, or making a cat that
is
both dead and alive at the same time and in the same way, or making a
free
will that is in bondage, so that it cannot freely choose to do evil.
It's nice to say that God can *only* do what "can be done", but then we
are left with the question, what can be done?
Do you mean that He can only do what we, based on our current level of
technology think is feasible? Surely he is not limited by what we know.
I think I illustrated what I meant with sufficient examples.
You you simply saying that He cannot do the logically impossible?
Wouldn't that imply that logic is more powerful than God? By saying that
He has "power of all things that exist" aren't you saying He has power
over logic, or are you saying that logic doesn't exist?
"Logic" is not really a separated "thing". It is simply a partial
description of God's own nature as a conscious rational being. Logic cannot
have "power" over God, any more than God can have "power" over Himself.
No one can demonstrate that it is possible for a self-contradictory entity
to exist. No one can even think of such a situation. By definition,
self-contradiction means incapable of existence. So no one can sustain an
existence that cannot exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
03 Feb 2005 09:21:48 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
It's nice to say that God can *only* do what "can be done", but then we
are left with the question, what can be done?
Do you mean that He can only do what we, based on our current level of
technology think is feasible? Surely he is not limited by what we know.
I think I illustrated what I meant with sufficient examples.
Obviously I don't.
You you simply saying that He cannot do the logically impossible?
Wouldn't that imply that logic is more powerful than God? By saying that
He has "power of all things that exist" aren't you saying He has power
over logic, or are you saying that logic doesn't exist?
"Logic" is not really a separated "thing". It is simply a partial
description of God's own nature as a conscious rational being. Logic cannot
have "power" over God, any more than God can have "power" over Himself.
This sounds much like my "God is good" comment, as in everything he does
is defined as good, so he can't do evil simply by definition.
You seem to be saying that whatever God does is inherently logical. So
he could create a universe where 1 + 1 = 43 or where things we consider
logically impossible are possible, it's just that he didn't. Is that
right?
No one can demonstrate that it is possible for a self-contradictory entity
to exist.
Of course, and that is the topic of discussion here. Is the concept
"omnipotence" self-contradictory? If it is, then nothing can exist with
that trait.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
03 Feb 2005 10:44:22 PM |
|
|
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-B56E16.16211903022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
It's nice to say that God can *only* do what "can be done", but then we
are left with the question, what can be done?
Do you mean that He can only do what we, based on our current level of
technology think is feasible? Surely he is not limited by what we know.
I think I illustrated what I meant with sufficient examples.
Obviously I don't.
You you simply saying that He cannot do the logically impossible?
Wouldn't that imply that logic is more powerful than God? By saying
that
He has "power of all things that exist" aren't you saying He has power
over logic, or are you saying that logic doesn't exist?
"Logic" is not really a separated "thing". It is simply a partial
description of God's own nature as a conscious rational being. Logic
cannot
have "power" over God, any more than God can have "power" over Himself.
This sounds much like my "God is good" comment, as in everything he does
is defined as good, so he can't do evil simply by definition.
You seem to be saying that whatever God does is inherently logical.
Yes. But not because it is "defined" as logical. Rather, it is because God
Himself is logic personified, just as He is goodness personified. I'm
talking about the God who is eternal. Whatever He is, He has been that
forever, and whatever anything else is, it derives its being from Him.
So
he could create a universe where 1 + 1 = 43
But that's not logical. 1+1 cannot be equal to 43. So such a universe cannot
exist. And therefore, God could not create it. But that does not contradict
"omnipotence", because "omnipotence" as far as I know, has never included
the idea of doing the logically impossible.
or where things we consider
logically impossible are possible,
"we consider"? Our considerations can be wrong. I'm talking about the logic
that is absolute, i.e. the logic where if the premises are true, the
conclusion is necessarily true, even if some disagreeable crazy person
denies it.
it's just that he didn't. Is that
right?
No. He can't, and because He can't, neither can anyone else.
No one can demonstrate that it is possible for a self-contradictory
entity
to exist.
Of course, and that is the topic of discussion here. Is the concept
"omnipotence" self-contradictory? If it is, then nothing can exist with
that trait.
Well I still haven't received an answer to my question, what was the
"original" definition of "omnipotence", if, as someone claimed, the
definition has been changed by theologians. I really don't think that the
concept was ever defined to include the ability to violate logic. (I'm not
counting the bitter atheists in these NGs, who change definitions to
whatever can help them put down God - I'm talking about serious philosophers
and theologians).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 03:57:15 AM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
No one can demonstrate that it is possible for a self-contradictory
entity
to exist.
Of course, and that is the topic of discussion here. Is the concept
"omnipotence" self-contradictory? If it is, then nothing can exist with
that trait.
Well I still haven't received an answer to my question, what was the
"original" definition of "omnipotence", if, as someone claimed, the
definition has been changed by theologians. I really don't think that the
concept was ever defined to include the ability to violate logic. (I'm not
counting the bitter atheists in these NGs, who change definitions to
whatever can help them put down God - I'm talking about serious philosophers
and theologians).
If the concept is not defined to include the ability to do *anything*
then we must limit it by what we think cannot be done. The problem with
that is we find that for many things we were wrong and it turned out
they could be done after all. Can God cause a spaceship to travel at the
speed of light for example?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 04:17:32 AM |
|
|
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-6ECD44.22565403022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
No one can demonstrate that it is possible for a self-contradictory
entity
to exist.
Of course, and that is the topic of discussion here. Is the concept
"omnipotence" self-contradictory? If it is, then nothing can exist with
that trait.
Well I still haven't received an answer to my question, what was the
"original" definition of "omnipotence", if, as someone claimed, the
definition has been changed by theologians. I really don't think that the
concept was ever defined to include the ability to violate logic. (I'm
not
counting the bitter atheists in these NGs, who change definitions to
whatever can help them put down God - I'm talking about serious
philosophers
and theologians).
If the concept is not defined to include the ability to do *anything*
then we must limit it by what we think cannot be done. The problem with
that is we find that for many things we were wrong and it turned out
they could be done after all.
But you are not talking about logical impossibility. You are talking about
misjudgments due to ignorance. Logic inferences can be valid even when
premises are false. So the fault is not in the logic but in the premises.
Can God cause a spaceship to travel at the
speed of light for example?
If the premise that "nothing can travel at the speed of light" is absolutely
true for all things in all places and at all times, then no, God couldn't
create such a spaceship. But if the premise is in error, who knows?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 03:55:55 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
If the concept is not defined to include the ability to do *anything*
then we must limit it by what we think cannot be done. The problem with
that is we find that for many things we were wrong and it turned out
they could be done after all.
But you are not talking about logical impossibility. You are talking about
misjudgments due to ignorance.
Not at all. I'm talking about what it is we think is impossible based on
our current understanding. That includes logic.
Can God cause a spaceship to travel at the
speed of light for example?
If the premise that "nothing can travel at the speed of light" is absolutely
true for all things in all places and at all times, then no, God couldn't
create such a spaceship. But if the premise is in error, who knows?
Therein lies the problem. What if the premiss that is embodied in truth
tables is wrong? Sure, we don't think they are wrong, but then we don't
think anything can go the speed of light either.
It seems a little uncomfortable to say "God can't do X" simply because
you don't think X can be done, doesn't it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
05 Feb 2005 05:52:38 PM |
|
|
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-BF6F39.10553704022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
If the concept is not defined to include the ability to do *anything*
then we must limit it by what we think cannot be done. The problem with
that is we find that for many things we were wrong and it turned out
they could be done after all.
But you are not talking about logical impossibility. You are talking
about
misjudgments due to ignorance.
Not at all. I'm talking about what it is we think is impossible based on
our current understanding. That includes logic.
No. Logic is independent of our "current" understanding. For example, the
law of non-contradiction: a thing cannot both exist and not exist at the
same time in the same way. That is a self-evident truth. It is unchangeable,
not subject to changing opinions, and incapable of being false. It is an
absolute.
Can God cause a spaceship to travel at the
speed of light for example?
If the premise that "nothing can travel at the speed of light" is
absolutely
true for all things in all places and at all times, then no, God couldn't
create such a spaceship. But if the premise is in error, who knows?
Therein lies the problem. What if the premiss that is embodied in truth
tables is wrong? Sure, we don't think they are wrong, but then we don't
think anything can go the speed of light either.
I challenge you to conceive of a circumstance in which the law of
non-contradiction is false. You will never be able to do so, because if you
did, you would no longer have a standard to judge whether your conception
was true or false. If there is an error in someone's copy of the truth
tables, it is not the fault of logic, but of the inattentiveness of the
compiler of the tables. In fact, the only way such an error could even be
discovered is by the law of non-contradiction!
On the other hand, it is easy to conceive of a circumstance in which the
"law" of the speed of light is wrong. Many physicists have done so.
It seems a little uncomfortable to say "God can't do X" simply because
you don't think X can be done, doesn't it?
If it was because of what "I think", then yes. But it has nothing to do with
what "I think". Not all knowledge comes from human thought. Some knowledge
is inextricably built in to reality. Some knowldge IS reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
05 Feb 2005 08:30:23 PM |
|
|
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
If the concept is not defined to include the ability to do *anything*
then we must limit it by what we think cannot be done. The problem with
that is we find that for many things we were wrong and it turned out
they could be done after all.
But you are not talking about logical impossibility. You are talking
about
misjudgments due to ignorance.
Not at all. I'm talking about what it is we think is impossible based on
our current understanding. That includes logic.
No. Logic is independent of our "current" understanding. For example, the
law of non-contradiction: a thing cannot both exist and not exist at the
same time in the same way. That is a self-evident truth. It is unchangeable,
not subject to changing opinions, and incapable of being false. It is an
absolute.
Can God cause a spaceship to travel at the
speed of light for example?
If the premise that "nothing can travel at the speed of light" is
absolutely
true for all things in all places and at all times, then no, God couldn't
create such a spaceship. But if the premise is in error, who knows?
Therein lies the problem. What if the premiss that is embodied in truth
tables is wrong? Sure, we don't think they are wrong, but then we don't
think anything can go the speed of light either.
I challenge you to conceive of a circumstance in which the law of
non-contradiction is false. You will never be able to do so, because if you
did, you would no longer have a standard to judge whether your conception
was true or false. If there is an error in someone's copy of the truth
tables, it is not the fault of logic, but of the inattentiveness of the
compiler of the tables. In fact, the only way such an error could even be
discovered is by the law of non-contradiction!
On the other hand, it is easy to conceive of a circumstance in which the
"law" of the speed of light is wrong. Many physicists have done so.
It seems a little uncomfortable to say "God can't do X" simply because
you don't think X can be done, doesn't it?
If it was because of what "I think", then yes. But it has nothing to do with
what "I think". Not all knowledge comes from human thought. Some knowledge
is inextricably built in to reality. Some knowldge IS reality.
There you go. First you "challenge" me to "conceive of" something as if
the fact that I can't conceive it means God can't do it; then you say
that it has nothing to do with what "I think".
So I ask again, is omnipotence limited by what we think can be done? Or
does omnipotence mean *all* powerful and able to do *anything*?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
05 Feb 2005 09:47:02 PM |
|
|
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-FF8635.15295305022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
If the concept is not defined to include the ability to do
*anything*
then we must limit it by what we think cannot be done. The problem
with
that is we find that for many things we were wrong and it turned out
they could be done after all.
But you are not talking about logical impossibility. You are talking
about
misjudgments due to ignorance.
Not at all. I'm talking about what it is we think is impossible based
on
our current understanding. That includes logic.
No. Logic is independent of our "current" understanding. For example, the
law of non-contradiction: a thing cannot both exist and not exist at the
same time in the same way. That is a self-evident truth. It is
unchangeable,
not subject to changing opinions, and incapable of being false. It is an
absolute.
Can God cause a spaceship to travel at the
speed of light for example?
If the premise that "nothing can travel at the speed of light" is
absolutely
true for all things in all places and at all times, then no, God
couldn't
create such a spaceship. But if the premise is in error, who knows?
Therein lies the problem. What if the premiss that is embodied in truth
tables is wrong? Sure, we don't think they are wrong, but then we don't
think anything can go the speed of light either.
I challenge you to conceive of a circumstance in which the law of
non-contradiction is false. You will never be able to do so, because if
you
did, you would no longer have a standard to judge whether your conception
was true or false. If there is an error in someone's copy of the truth
tables, it is not the fault of logic, but of the inattentiveness of the
compiler of the tables. In fact, the only way such an error could even be
discovered is by the law of non-contradiction!
On the other hand, it is easy to conceive of a circumstance in which the
"law" of the speed of light is wrong. Many physicists have done so.
It seems a little uncomfortable to say "God can't do X" simply because
you don't think X can be done, doesn't it?
If it was because of what "I think", then yes. But it has nothing to do
with
what "I think". Not all knowledge comes from human thought. Some
knowledge
is inextricably built in to reality. Some knowldge IS reality.
There you go. First you "challenge" me to "conceive of" something as if
the fact that I can't conceive it means God can't do it; then you say
that it has nothing to do with what "I think".
I also explained that the law of non-contradiction, which is the
self-evident core of logic, is an absolute fact of knowledge, in that, if it
was false, there would be no standard whatsoever by which to judge whether
any other proposition was true or false. In fact, there would be no standard
by which to judge whether the alleged falsehood of the law of
non-contradiction holds. In other words, there is no knowledge at all
without it. Therefore, if there is any knowledge, then the law of
non-contradiction is true.
Of course, you can deny that knowledge exists if you like. But that will end
any meaningful conversation.
So I ask again, is omnipotence limited by what we think can be done? Or
does omnipotence mean *all* powerful and able to do *anything*?
And I answer again, as I plainly did before, that no, omnipotence is not
limited by what "we think" can be done. It is limited by what CAN be done.
And "we" did not originate the law of non-contradiction from our thought. It
does not come from our minds. It is a permanent reality, an absolute.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 10:34:26 AM |
|
|
Chris Devol wrote:
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-B56E16.16211903022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
It's nice to say that God can *only* do what "can be done", but then
we are left with the question, what can be done?
Do you mean that He can only do what we, based on our current level of
technology think is feasible? Surely he is not limited by what we
know.
I think I illustrated what I meant with sufficient examples.
Obviously I don't.
You you simply saying that He cannot do the logically impossible?
Wouldn't that imply that logic is more powerful than God? By saying
that
He has "power of all things that exist" aren't you saying He has power
over logic, or are you saying that logic doesn't exist?
"Logic" is not really a separated "thing". It is simply a partial
description of God's own nature as a conscious rational being. Logic
cannot
have "power" over God, any more than God can have "power" over Himself.
This sounds much like my "God is good" comment, as in everything he does
is defined as good, so he can't do evil simply by definition.
You seem to be saying that whatever God does is inherently logical.
Yes. But not because it is "defined" as logical. Rather, it is because God
Himself is logic personified,
A challengable assertion. Why should we say that at all?
It does not solve the problems of omnipotence's incoherence.
Can god make a rock so big he cannot lift it?
Either way you answer this, omnipotence as a concept crumbles
away.
If god was logic personified, he could do anything he wanted
and make the rules and logic of the Universe as he wanted.
If he is omnipotent, and he is omnibenevolent, he must
make a world where man has free will yet freely chooses
to only do moral good, because this maximizes good and minimizes evil.
Which is what omnibenevolence is all about.
But if he cannot do this, then he is not logic personified, which is a high
sounding but empty phrase.
He is bound by logic of this Universe and it is still not explained where
that logic comes from and why even god is bound by that.
Why the Universe is such that evil must exist, despite his
omnibenevolence. Logic here destroys naive omnipotence.
Where does this logic come from? Not god. Obviously.
just as He is goodness personified. I'm
talking about the God who is eternal. Whatever He is, He has been that
forever, and whatever anything else is, it derives its being from Him.
So
he could create a universe where 1 + 1 = 43
But that's not logical. 1+1 cannot be equal to 43. So such a universe
cannot exist. And therefore, God could not create it. But that does not
contradict "omnipotence", because "omnipotence" as far as I know, has
never included the idea of doing the logically impossible.
or where things we consider
logically impossible are possible,
"we consider"? Our considerations can be wrong. I'm talking about the
logic that is absolute, i.e. the logic where if the premises are true, the
conclusion is necessarily true, even if some disagreeable crazy person
denies it.
it's just that he didn't. Is that
right?
No. He can't, and because He can't, neither can anyone else.
No one can demonstrate that it is possible for a self-contradictory
entity
to exist.
Of course, and that is the topic of discussion here. Is the concept
"omnipotence" self-contradictory? If it is, then nothing can exist with
that trait.
Well I still haven't received an answer to my question, what was the
"original" definition of "omnipotence", if, as someone claimed, the
definition has been changed by theologians. I really don't think that the
concept was ever defined to include the ability to violate logic. (I'm not
counting the bitter atheists in these NGs, who change definitions to
whatever can help them put down God - I'm talking about serious
philosophers and theologians).
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Devol" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 04:31:56 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:ctuqbu$ta3@library1.airnews.net...
Chris Devol wrote:
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-B56E16.16211903022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
It's nice to say that God can *only* do what "can be done", but then
we are left with the question, what can be done?
Do you mean that He can only do what we, based on our current level
of
technology think is feasible? Surely he is not limited by what we
know.
I think I illustrated what I meant with sufficient examples.
Obviously I don't.
You you simply saying that He cannot do the logically impossible?
Wouldn't that imply that logic is more powerful than God? By saying
that
He has "power of all things that exist" aren't you saying He has
power
over logic, or are you saying that logic doesn't exist?
"Logic" is not really a separated "thing". It is simply a partial
description of God's own nature as a conscious rational being. Logic
cannot
have "power" over God, any more than God can have "power" over Himself.
This sounds much like my "God is good" comment, as in everything he does
is defined as good, so he can't do evil simply by definition.
You seem to be saying that whatever God does is inherently logical.
Yes. But not because it is "defined" as logical. Rather, it is because
God
Himself is logic personified,
A challengable assertion. Why should we say that at all?
It does not solve the problems of omnipotence's incoherence.
"Omnipotence" is not incoherent. It is well-defined, except apparently in
your mind.
Can god make a rock so big he cannot lift it?
Either way you answer this, omnipotence as a concept crumbles
away.
God is unlimited. Therefore, He is ever-increasing. He can make a rock so
big that He cannot lift it. And then He can lift it.
If god was logic personified, he could do anything he wanted
and make the rules and logic of the Universe as he wanted.
That is not correct. God is logic personified. Therefore He must act in a
logical manner. He must be Himself.
If he is omnipotent, and he is omnibenevolent, he must
make a world where man has free will yet freely chooses
to only do moral good,
That is not "free" will. It is will that is in bondage to a particular
chioce. You are asserting a self-contradiction.
because this maximizes good and minimizes evil.
Which is what omnibenevolence is all about.
You have demonstrated a profound ignorance of the standard meanings of
"omnipotence" and "free will". Before you mangle any more commonly
understood terms, I think you should step back and do some homework. On the
other hand, if you want only fools to reply to your increasingly shrill and
trivial posts, then by all means go on in this way.
Have a nice kali-yuga.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 10:27:04 AM |
|
|
Daniel T. wrote:
"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
It's nice to say that God can *only* do what "can be done", but then we
are left with the question, what can be done?
Do you mean that He can only do what we, based on our current level of
technology think is feasible? Surely he is not limited by what we know.
I think I illustrated what I meant with sufficient examples.
Obviously I don't.
You you simply saying that He cannot do the logically impossible?
Wouldn't that imply that logic is more powerful than God? By saying
that He has "power of all things that exist" aren't you saying He has
power over logic, or are you saying that logic doesn't exist?
"Logic" is not really a separated "thing". It is simply a partial
description of God's own nature as a conscious rational being. Logic
cannot have "power" over God, any more than God can have "power" over
Himself.
This sounds much like my "God is good" comment, as in everything he does
is defined as good, so he can't do evil simply by definition.
You seem to be saying that whatever God does is inherently logical. So
he could create a universe where 1 + 1 = 43 or where things we consider
logically impossible are possible, it's just that he didn't. Is that
right?
No one can demonstrate that it is possible for a self-contradictory
entity to exist.
Of course, and that is the topic of discussion here. Is the concept
"omnipotence" self-contradictory? If it is, then nothing can exist with
that trait.
Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
The problem is, the very concept of omnipotence starts to self
destruct when you start asking questions like this.
Its literally incoherent in its naive form.
Either way you answer it, it ends up in nonsense.
So you have to start qualifying the definition to save
it and soon it isn't omnipotence at all.
Its more like god can do what god can do.
And the question is, what is that?
And what hard evidence is there for anything?
The question, does god make the logic of the Universe,
its rules and laws, just compounds the problems.
Its rather hard to rationalize it all away easily.
Omnipotence is an idea that cannot stand on its own
two legs. And related problems are hard to think of how
to investigate them in a serious manner.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
03 Feb 2005 10:29:01 PM |
|
|
Daniel T. wrote:
(snip)
You you simply saying that He cannot do the logically impossible?
Wouldn't that imply that logic is more powerful than God? By saying
that
He has "power of all things that exist" aren't you saying He has
power
over logic, or are you saying that logic doesn't exist?
I don't see that logic limits God's power at all. IMO it's more like
logic is the limit of what we can sensibly propose. If we say that God
cannot do [fill in some logical contradiction] that doesn't count as a
thing God can't so--the logically contradictory set of ideas is just
gibberish and you statement that he cannot do it is like saying God
cannot %%%$$$#%^%&$^&$&--the statement means nothing.
see you later
keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 10:18:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
(snip)
You you simply saying that He cannot do the logically impossible?
Wouldn't that imply that logic is more powerful than God? By saying
that
He has "power of all things that exist" aren't you saying He has
power
over logic, or are you saying that logic doesn't exist?
I don't see that logic limits God's power at all. IMO it's more like
logic is the limit of what we can sensibly propose.
And where do these limits to what can be proposed come from?
If god did not create them, what did? And just what are they?
And how would you investigate this question meaningfully?
Could it be that sensible proposals rule out gods all
togeter in a Universe made of matter and energy and
rules by the laws of physics?
Just what is sensible anyway in this Universe?
If we say that God
cannot do [fill in some logical contradiction] that doesn't count as a
thing God can't so--the logically contradictory set of ideas is just
gibberish and you statement that he cannot do it is like saying God
cannot %%%$$$#%^%&$^&$&--the statement means nothing.
see you later
keith
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 02:53:19 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
keithj43@yahoo.com wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
(snip)
You you simply saying that He cannot do the logically impossible?
Wouldn't that imply that logic is more powerful than God? By
saying
that
He has "power of all things that exist" aren't you saying He has
power
over logic, or are you saying that logic doesn't exist?
I don't see that logic limits God's power at all. IMO it's more
like
logic is the limit of what we can sensibly propose.
And where do these limits to what can be proposed come from?
If god did not create them, what did? And just what are they?
And how would you investigate this question meaningfully?
I'm not sure the whole idea of the laws of logic coming from somewhere
is sensible, since that implies there being a time (or at least a
possible situation) where they weren't in force and we cannot even so
much as contemplate that. If I'm right about that then the laws of
logic are eternally existing; in my opinion they are an aspect of God's
mind.
Could it be that sensible proposals rule out gods all
togeter in a Universe made of matter and energy and
rules by the laws of physics?
I wouldn't think so. I'd say that the energy/matter and the laws of the
universe all are expressions of God's creative will--he created those
things, IMO.
keith
Just what is sensible anyway in this Universe?
If we say that God
cannot do [fill in some logical contradiction] that doesn't count
as a
thing God can't so--the logically contradictory set of ideas is
just
gibberish and you statement that he cannot do it is like saying God
cannot %%%$$$#%^%&$^&$&--the statement means nothing.
see you later
keith
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 09:57:57 AM |
|
|
Chris Devol wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:cts0rq$qn@library2.airnews.net...
Daniel T. wrote:
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
To be sure, the word is not really defined.
When you do define the word, problems show up.
So it gets redefined by theologists.
Example. God is omnibenevolent. He cannot do evil.
Thus there is one thing god cannot do. Evil.
And since he is good,he must do good. He must do
maximum good at all times. Since he must, he canot be omnipotent,
since he is limited by his omnipotence and must act in certain
ways at all times.
That isn't quite how I understood it. It's not that God cannot do "evil"
but "God is good", i.e. anything God does is "good". In other words, His
omnibenevolence doesn't limit his actions.
Well, no. That is one way, extreme moral relativism,
but that is not what the classical theologians from Augustine on
accepted.
Which is when the problems set in. They redefined omnipotence
and brushed it under the rug.
So, how do you think "omnipotence" was defined "originally"?
There were always struggles with that concept every since the days of
Heraclitus. Epicurus posed the problem of evil about 270 CE.
If the gods are omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then why does evil exist?
So at that early date, these problems were argued about.
There was no single one definition of gods or omnipotence.
The Neoplatonists started the vogue of brushing this under the rug
and plastering over it all with lots of pretensious words.
From the time of Augustine on, this is the route most have followed.
Part of philosphy always was, what are the gods, their natures,
how does this Universe work? Plato and Aristotle struggled with
these concepts and the nature of gods.
If you are looking for the one standard definition, there wasn't any.
Basically, the idea that god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent
became dogma about 400 CE, Augustine pretty much made that dogma when his
books were accepted as pretty much standard othodox theology.
Others dealt with the dangling ends Augustine ignored. Most notably
Amselm. Aquinas followed Anslem in much of his theology.
Aquinas' works became essentially RCC dogma.
I have never heard any other definition than something like "able to do
all that can be done", or, "having power over all things that exist". I
have never seen a definition that includes the ability to do what is
self-contradictory, such as making a square circle, or making a cat that
is both dead and alive at the same time and in the same way, or making a
free will that is in bondage, so that it cannot freely choose to do evil.
The problem of can god do the impossible is old, Aquinas, again following
Anselm answered no. Mainly to attempt to avoid these issues. They then
pulled their punches, not bothering to follow up on the obvious questions,
where does logic come from if not from god?
The older theologians did explore the issue. Can god commit suicide?
Can god do evil? If he can do evil, how can he be omnibenevolent? If he
cannot do evil, how can he be omnipotent? Anselm dealt extensively with
such problems.
In problems like this, the problematic nature of free will and omnipotence
become obvious. If god is omnibenevolent, he must do good at all times.
If god must do good at all times, does god have free will?
If he does not have free will, can he said to be omnipotent?
Of course in many cases they were constrained as to what they could conclude
or say. Nobody wanted to get accused of heresy.
Of course we still end up with oddities.
Though Romans 8 - 11 explicitly teaches predestination, dogma
dictates that man has free will, as Aquinas again so explicitly states.
He also explicitly confirms god does too, without explicitly refering to the
odd puzzles of Anselm's day.
And defines god as omnipotent despite the problems, contradictions and loose
ends which never have been solved.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 03:47:41 AM |
|
|
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Epicurus posed the problem of evil about 270 CE.
I dispute the above claim, do you have any evidence that Epicurus ever
posed the problem of evil at any time? I have been unable to find any...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 04:56:35 AM |
|
|
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in news:postmaster-
376CDF.22472003022005@news1.east.earthlink.net:
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Epicurus posed the problem of evil about 270 CE.
I dispute the above claim, do you have any evidence that Epicurus ever
posed the problem of evil at any time? I have been unable to find
any...
I cannot find any such evidence either, so I've modified my sig to
include "Attributed to Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E."
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 03:01:04 PM |
|
|
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 it
must resonate with lots of people. But the argument rests on a
fuzziness that obscures the real issue IMO. There are lots of ways to
prevent evil. For example, if God didn't create any sentient beings at
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.
Keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 05:55:45 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1107529264.118003.86780
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
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 it
must resonate with lots of people. But the argument rests on a
fuzziness that obscures the real issue IMO. There are lots of ways to
prevent evil. For example, if God didn't create any sentient beings at
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.
Your argument assumes God exists. It is not evidence that God exists.
An amoral universe devoid of God answers all the objections equally well,
without assuming something not in evidence.
--
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
05 Feb 2005 12:57:09 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
keithj43@yahoo.com wrote in news:1107529264.118003.86780
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
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
it
must resonate with lots of people. But the argument rests on a
fuzziness that obscures the real issue IMO. There are lots of ways
to
prevent evil. For example, if God didn't create any sentient beings
at
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.
Your argument assumes God exists. It is not evidence that God
exists.
An amoral universe devoid of God answers all the objections equally
well,
without assuming something not in evidence.
I didn't intend for my argument to assume God exists. I meant my
argument to be of the form "IF God exists...". My point is that the
existence of an omnipotent, all-good being DOESN'T imply that there'd
be no evil since there is a possible state of affairs where the
omni-God exists and he allows us to do evil. You can rephrase my above
argument with the appropriate "if God..." caveats and the argument
works.
Keith
--
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.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
06 Feb 2005 06:54:31 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
keithj43@yahoo.com wrote in news:1107529264.118003.86780
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
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
it
must resonate with lots of people. But the argument rests on a
fuzziness that obscures the real issue IMO. There are lots of ways
to
prevent evil. For example, if God didn't create any sentient beings
at
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.
Your argument assumes God exists. It is not evidence that God
exists.
An amoral universe devoid of God answers all the objections equally
well,
without assuming something not in evidence.
I should have phrased things differently. My argument was intended to
be about what would be true IF God exists, making no presumption about
whether he does. The above argument can be rewritten to reflect that,
and IMO the argument is a sound one.
keith
--
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: If a God Concept is Omnipotent |
04 Feb 2005 04:17:56 PM |
|
|
In article <1107529264.118003.86780@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.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 it
must resonate with lots of people. But the argument rests on a
fuzziness that obscures the real issue IMO. There are lots of ways to
prevent evil. For example, if God didn't create any sentient beings at
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 and he should be able to
prevent evil by a method that does not make things worse than the actual
world.
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
