God Paradox
Posted on: September 27, 2008 - 8:23pm
Offline
God Paradox
Hey everyone, huge fan of the RSS and thought I would give your forum a test drive so to speak 
Anyway, I am wondering where I can find in the bible references to powers of god that contradict themselves so as to make god an impossible being as described by the bible.
For example
God has quality A
God also has qualty B
qualty A and B cancel each other out
therefore God can not exist.
Thanks in advance
McCragge (intending to be a long time poster)
What do you call someone who collects stamps? What do you call someone who does not?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
For best results try this link;
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
jeffrick
Are you referring to the riddle of Epicurus?
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
"Preachers and prostitutes earn their money on bended knee using mouth and hands. I much prefer the company of the latter." - Me
Um sort of, but I think I found what I was looking for at www.evilbible.com
Thanks for the help though!
McCragge
What do you call someone who collects stamps? What do you call someone who does not?
The irony of the site you found is too much. "Evil" bible? Just curious how one would make such an argument without appealing to some kind of morality?
(Joshua 10:12)It was nice of God to stop the sun for the Israelites, as no one wants to slaughter Amorites in the dark.
"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)
Read it [the bible] because we need more Atheists and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible. Elvis never did no drugs!
*Penn Jillette
The irony I was pointing out is that the site itself is a "moral" judgement. Its amusing.
This quote is played out on this site. The points simply do not follow. They are loaded statements. In the first point, God could prevent some evil and not all and still remain omnipotent. This point basically assumes that God has to act in every situation to prevent evil. The second point is equally as misleading. God may in fact be able to prevent certain evils but choose not to because His permitting them to occur could bring about a greater good. The third point is also ambiguous. God can act and prevent evil and need not do so exhaustively. Thus, this quote is logically inconsistent.
Based on biology, psychology, and society, etc, science can make qualitative assessments of morality. For example, we can conclude that stoning people for eating shellfish is absurd and detrimental to society.
Oh really? Please, continue.
Then you are assuming that God intentionally prevented some evil and not others. Therefore, you now need to explain the next three lines.
Well, isn't God omnibenevolent? If He is, doesn't he have to prevent evil?
So you're saying that God must allow some evil to occur to produce greater good in the long term? God is choosing the lesser of two evils? Why can't he just prevent evil completely?
Again, you're claiming that God can prevent evil but "need not do so exhaustively." Doesn't this contradict the idea of an omnibenevolent Heavenly Father?
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." -Marcus Aurelius
No, they are logical, the conclusions do logically follow - they are perfectly clear and logical.
eg, if he can't prevent ALL evil, then he is not omnipotent.
The sense in which you have an argument is that 'omnipotent' is not a logically consistent concept, as with the other 'omni' attributes.
So long as you are prepared to concede that individually and collectively, the 'omni' attributes are not logically coherent or meaningful, which logically leads to the final conclusion, would you still call a being without such attributes 'God'?
So yes they are loaded statements - they are meant to point out the problematic aspects of the traditional concept of an omni- God.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology