God Paradox

McCragge
atheist
McCragge's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-09-25
User is offlineOffline
God Paradox

Hey everyone, huge fan of the RSS and thought I would give your forum a test drive so to speak Smiling

 

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 Smiling

 

McCragge (intending to be a long time poster)

What do you call someone who collects stamps? What do you call someone who does not?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Welcome aboard

 

       For best results try this link;

 

       http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Are you referring to the

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?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


McCragge
atheist
McCragge's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-09-25
User is offlineOffline
Um sort of, but I think I

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?


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
the non-contingent being

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?


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:The irony of

spumoni wrote:

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?

Morals evolve with society, and much of the bull shit in the buybull is horrific by the standards of most modern civilized cultures.  Are you another one of those, "I would just go around murdering and raping all day if god wasn't watching me..." nuts?


 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:The irony of

spumoni wrote:

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?

That's a loaded question (a logical fallacy).  Your question presumes that there is not 'some kind of morality' that can be appealed to.  There are, in fact, many systems of morality that can be appealed to to define what is 'evil'.  Apparently the creators of that site believe the morality of the bible is, by comparison to their moral system, evil.  I am inclined to agree with their assessment based on my own moral system.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:spumoni

Thomathy wrote:

spumoni wrote:

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?

That's a loaded question (a logical fallacy).  Your question presumes that there is not 'some kind of morality' that can be appealed to.  There are, in fact, many systems of morality that can be appealed to to define what is 'evil'.  Apparently the creators of that site believe the morality of the bible is, by comparison to their moral system, evil.  I am inclined to agree with their assessment based on my own moral system.


 

 

 

The irony I was pointing out is that the site itself is a "moral" judgement.  Its amusing. 


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Are you

darth_josh wrote:

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?

 

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.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:The irony I was

 

Quote:
The irony I was pointing out is that the site itself is a "moral" judgement.  Its amusing.

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.

Quote:
The points simply do not follow.  They are loaded statements.
 

Oh really? Please, continue.

Quote:
In the first point, God could prevent some evil and not all and still remain omnipotent.

Then you are assuming that God intentionally prevented some evil and not others. Therefore, you now need to explain the next three lines.  

Quote:
This point basically assumes that God has to act in every situation to prevent evil.

Well, isn't God omnibenevolent? If He is, doesn't he have to prevent evil?

Quote:
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.
 

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? 

Quote:
The third point is also ambiguous.  God can act and prevent evil and need not do so exhaustively. Thus, this quote is logically inconsistent.

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? 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
spumoni wrote:darth_josh

spumoni wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

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?

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.

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

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:spumoni

BobSpence1 wrote:

spumoni wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

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?

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.

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.

 

The problem with these arguments is that you assume omnibenevolence means God always must prevent evil.  that in fact does not follow when a greater good can be achieved by allowing evil.  Thus, a greater benevolence occurs with the permission of certain evil actions of causal creatures.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
spumoni wrote:BobSpence1

spumoni wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

spumoni wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

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?

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.

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.

 

The problem with these arguments is that you assume omnibenevolence means God always must prevent evil.  that in fact does not follow when a greater good can be achieved by allowing evil.  Thus, a greater benevolence occurs with the permission of certain evil actions of causal creatures.

IOW, as per argument one, he is not omnipotent, if he cannot rearrange events so that no actual evil occurs, without detracting from the good. This may well be because omnipotence is ultimately an empty concept, of course. You still fail to get it, I see...

The omni powers simply are logically unworkable.

An infinite, eternal, omnipotent, etc being is a childish concept, fit only for immature cultures and individuals.

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

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:Quote:Are you

spumoni wrote:

Quote:

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?

The problem with these arguments is that you assume omnibenevolence means God always must prevent evil.  that in fact does not follow when a greater good can be achieved by allowing evil.  Thus, a greater benevolence occurs with the permission of certain evil actions of causal creatures.

Yes, but now you've violated the belief that God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, then He wouldn't need to allow some evil to produce a greater good. He would possess the ability to prevent evil entirely. Ultimately, we're trapped in the logic of Epicurus's riddle.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:The problem

spumoni wrote:

The problem with these arguments is that you assume omnibenevolence means God always must prevent evil.  that in fact does not follow when a greater good can be achieved by allowing evil.  Thus, a greater benevolence occurs with the permission of certain evil actions of causal creatures.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe this is the exact discussion Epicurus wanted to provoke.

So a greater benevolence is acheived through certain evil. Must we simply trust that greater benevolence is being served by evil acts, then? It seems a strange approach to take. I know that's a normative statement following a positive statement, and not an argument, but I'm curious what one would do with that hypothesis.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:spumoni

BobSpence1 wrote:

spumoni wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

spumoni wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

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?

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.

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.

 

The problem with these arguments is that you assume omnibenevolence means God always must prevent evil.  that in fact does not follow when a greater good can be achieved by allowing evil.  Thus, a greater benevolence occurs with the permission of certain evil actions of causal creatures.

IOW, as per argument one, he is not omnipotent, if he cannot rearrange events so that no actual evil occurs, without detracting from the good. This may well be because omnipotence is ultimately an empty concept, of course. You still fail to get it, I see...

The omni powers simply are logically unworkable.

An infinite, eternal, omnipotent, etc being is a childish concept, fit only for immature cultures and individuals.

 

Apart from name calling, you've made no argument here.  I simply disagree with your presupposition of what omnipotence requires.  You've failed to make an argument for your particular omni concepts.  Seeing as you are not a Christian, I will pull that card and argue that you are attributing non-Christian concepts of omni's to make your argument.  This is the fundamental flaw.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:spumoni

butterbattle wrote:

spumoni wrote:

Quote:

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?

The problem with these arguments is that you assume omnibenevolence means God always must prevent evil.  that in fact does not follow when a greater good can be achieved by allowing evil.  Thus, a greater benevolence occurs with the permission of certain evil actions of causal creatures.

Yes, but now you've violated the belief that God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, then He wouldn't need to allow some evil to produce a greater good. He would possess the ability to prevent evil entirely. Ultimately, we're trapped in the logic of Epicurus's riddle.

Wrong.  I've violated YOUR particular version of omnipotence.  You've failed to apprehend the loading of  your argument with your own presupposition.  If a greater good can be produced by allowing evil, does that not contribute to a greater benevolence in fact?  I believe it does.  yes, God can have the power to prevent all evil but is it possible that world is one with less benevolence?


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:spumoni

HisWillness wrote:

spumoni wrote:

The problem with these arguments is that you assume omnibenevolence means God always must prevent evil.  that in fact does not follow when a greater good can be achieved by allowing evil.  Thus, a greater benevolence occurs with the permission of certain evil actions of causal creatures.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe this is the exact discussion Epicurus wanted to provoke.

So a greater benevolence is acheived through certain evil. Must we simply trust that greater benevolence is being served by evil acts, then? It seems a strange approach to take. I know that's a normative statement following a positive statement, and not an argument, but I'm curious what one would do with that hypothesis.

 

I think you have posited correctly.  A greater benevolence is the result.  So the next proposition to test is what would be the purpose of such a state of affairs?  Can we trust a power that would desire to achieve such a benevolence etc.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Yes, but

butterbattle wrote:

Yes, but now you've violated the belief that God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, then He wouldn't need to allow some evil to produce a greater good. He would possess the ability to prevent evil entirely. Ultimately, we're trapped in the logic of Epicurus's riddle.

spumoni wrote:

Wrong.  I've violated YOUR particular version of omnipotence.  You've failed to apprehend the loading of  your argument with your own presupposition.  If a greater good can be produced by allowing evil, does that not contribute to a greater benevolence in fact?  I believe it does.  yes, God can have the power to prevent all evil but is it possible that world is one with less benevolence?

Omnipotence means all-powerful; this is the dictionary definition, and I'm assuming this is your definition of omnipotence as well.

Now, obviously, God possesses the ability to produce greater good by allowing evil. I am not challenging this point. However, if you pursue this logic, then you are still trapped in Epicurus's riddle. If God is infinitely powerful, then he can make the universe infinitely good without creating evil. Thus, Yahweh holds the option to create to evil, but would have no logical reason to do so, since the choice lacks utility. As a result, if we assume...

Premise - God is all-powerful.

Premise - Evil exists.

...then God is not omnibenevolent.   

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
1. Even the buybull allows

1. Even the buybull allows god to be evil.  According to the damn book he created evil, and he send evil spirits.  The buybull does not claim that god is benevolent, so where does this shit come from?

2. The damn book gives limitations to god's power.  He has the strength of a unicorn and is ill suited to dealing with iron chariots.  His incompetents in problem solving is astounding throughout the bilbe, so where does this omnipotents shit come from?

3. Omnipotents is a paradox unto itself.  Can god make a hotdog so big even he can't eat all of it?

 a.  All power requires that he must be able to do all things including making a hotdog so big even he can't eat it.

 b.  All power requires that he must be able to eat a hotdog so big even he can't eat it.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
 hazindu wrote: 1. Even the

 

hazindu wrote:
1. Even the buybull allows god to be evil.  According to the damn book he created evil, and he send evil spirits.  The buybull does not claim that god is benevolent, so where does this shit come from?

Zoroastrian dualism

 

hazindu wrote:
2. The damn book gives limitations to god's power.  He has the strength of a unicorn and is ill suited to dealing with iron chariots.  His incompetents in problem solving is astounding throughout the bilbe, so where does this omnipotents shit come from?

Mild mannered Yahweh isn't omnipotent. But when he slips into a phone booth or confession box, he transforms into Super God,  Faster than a speed hyped fundy. More intelligent than a locomotive. Able to leap tall logic with a single oversight.

Look! Up in the sky!

It's a minor Canaanite son of El.

It's invisible.

It's Super God!

hazindu wrote:
  3. Omnipotents is a paradox unto itself.  Can god make a hotdog so big even he can't eat all of it?

 a.  All power requires that he must be able to do all things including making a hotdog so big even he can't eat it.

 b.  All power requires that he must be able to eat a hotdog so big even he can't eat it.

Some things ever Super God can't do. You see, he has a vulnerability. Reason and common sense render him powerless. To make up for this vulnerability, he has employed the use of a sidekick, Wonder Boy.

Wonder Boy has a slew of lesser powers including stage magic, the ability to find slightly submerged stones in pools of water, speaking in confusing parables, and cursing out of season fruit trees for failing to provide fruit. Wonder Boy was cloned from Super God, so when Super God finds a hot dog that he can't eat alone, he summons Wonder Boy to help him eat it. Since Wonder Boy is a clone, Super God cunningly overcomes this paradox of omnipotence by eating the hot dog with his clone/self.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


pablotar
pablotar's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
hazindu wrote: 3.

hazindu wrote:

3. Omnipotents is a paradox unto itself.  Can god make a hotdog so big even he can't eat all of it?

 a.  All power requires that he must be able to do all things including making a hotdog so big even he can't eat it.

 b.  All power requires that he must be able to eat a hotdog so big even he can't eat it.

I never heard that one before!  I gotta use that!

I don't know why I find it so funny; I've been laughing for like ten minutes now!

Maybe it's impolite to bring a giant hot dog to a serious discussion?

 

Eden had a 25% murder rate and incest was rampant.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
hazindu wrote:1. Even the

hazindu wrote:

1. Even the buybull allows god to be evil.  According to the damn book he created evil, and he send evil spirits.  The buybull does not claim that god is benevolent, so where does this shit come from?

Christians frequently claim that Yahweh is omnibenevolent, although this belief has virtually no support in the Bible, especially the OT. Thus, I just target this anyways. For the question, I think there is a natural tendency to believe that Gods are good. Why worship an evil God?

Quote:
All power requires that he must be able to eat a hotdog so big even he can't eat it.

Okay, now that's just confusing. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
round and round we go

Again, you are affirming an omnipotence that is alien to Christianity.  Omnipotence means the ability to do everything possible.  God can't make a round triangle because it is logically impossible.  This means the qualities of omnipotence are logically consistent.  God can create a reality without evil but that does not necessarily mean it will have more good.  If evil exists, greater good can result from the variety of redemptive acts that occur throughout our world everyday that would not exist if evil did not exist.  I would argue that  God in fact allowed for the possibility of evil seeing that a greater good would result from the choices of free will beings.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
hazindu wrote:1. Even the

hazindu wrote:

1. Even the buybull allows god to be evil.  According to the damn book he created evil, and he send evil spirits.  The buybull does not claim that god is benevolent, so where does this shit come from?

2. The damn book gives limitations to god's power.  He has the strength of a unicorn and is ill suited to dealing with iron chariots.  His incompetents in problem solving is astounding throughout the bilbe, so where does this omnipotents shit come from?

3. Omnipotents is a paradox unto itself.  Can god make a hotdog so big even he can't eat all of it?

 a.  All power requires that he must be able to do all things including making a hotdog so big even he can't eat it.

 b.  All power requires that he must be able to eat a hotdog so big even he can't eat it.

 

See my post above.  God is not required to do some logical contradiction like the complex question you posted above.  Its a logical fallacy and as such does not fall within the properties of God's omnipotence.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
spumoni wrote:Again, you are

spumoni wrote:

Again, you are affirming an omnipotence that is alien to Christianity.  Omnipotence means the ability to do everything possible.  God can't make a round triangle because it is logically impossible.  This means the qualities of omnipotence are logically consistent.  God can create a reality without evil but that does not necessarily mean it will have more good.

Absence of actual evil would not logically imply less 'good', or be logically inconsistent with more 'good'. It would at least intuitively seem more likely to lead to a better world.

Quote:

If evil exists, greater good can result from the variety of redemptive acts that occur throughout our world everyday that would not exist if evil did not exist.  I would argue that  God in fact allowed for the possibility of evil seeing that a greater good would result from the choices of free will beings.

Now that is just sick. It sounds like letting someone suffer is ultimately good if it allows someone to display their 'goodness' by rescuing them.

That reminds of that practice in some Asian cultures, typically Buddhist, where you can buy caged birds and gain karma points by setting them free. I would regard it preferable that they never be caged in the first place and ones time and resources spent on actually helping people in difficulties. The less really bad things happen in the world, whether natural disasters or acts of man, the more resources availbale for actually improving the world.

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

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:I think you

spumoni wrote:

I think you have posited correctly.  A greater benevolence is the result.  So the next proposition to test is what would be the purpose of such a state of affairs?  Can we trust a power that would desire to achieve such a benevolence etc.

I have difficulty imagining the goals of an entity that wanted to make sure its pets were tortured before it put them in a different (yet immutable) cage for the rest of their existence. Can we trust such a power is almost irrelevant. Could we resist such a power? I don't think it would be possible to do anything but what that entity wanted. So we would suffer and do exactly what it wants regardless, because its goal is that we should be tortured for its idea of benevolence.

No, I think that's an unlikely scenario.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:Omnipotence

spumoni wrote:
Omnipotence means the ability to do everything possible.

That can't be right. God's existence relies on something intangible, immeasurable, and not conforming to nature existing. That's not possible. That would make God's omnipotence unable to bring God into existence. Which is crazy talk.

spumoni wrote:
God can create a reality without evil but that does not necessarily mean it will have more good.

But good and evil are judgements (even if it's God doing all the judging). So what you're saying is that God can create a reality that lacks behaviour He would judge as evil. But then why would God not do that if his judgement of evil is negative?

spumoni wrote:
If evil exists, greater good can result from the variety of redemptive acts that occur throughout our world everyday that would not exist if evil did not exist.  I would argue that  God in fact allowed for the possibility of evil seeing that a greater good would result from the choices of free will beings.

This is mind-bending. So God judges good and evil in your frame of reference. God is the way to understand what is right and wrong, good and evil. So God, who is omnipotent, can create a world without things He judges as evil, but chooses to keep the things he thinks are evil so that more good behaviour shows up? But then more evil does, in fact, mean more good. If God is limited by logical consistency, your version of God is colouring way outside the lines.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:Again, you are

spumoni wrote:

Again, you are affirming an omnipotence that is alien to Christianity.  Omnipotence means the ability to do everything possible. God can't make a round triangle because it is logically impossible.  This means the qualities of omnipotence are logically consistent.

No, omnipotence means the ability to do everything. The ability to do everything possible is a laughable definition; the whole point of a God concept is that the God can do what is supposed to be impossible. If it's possible, then it can be done; if God only does what is possible, then why call him God? Furthermore, if God can't do something, then he is not omnipotent, and Christians need to stop using the word. 

Quote:
God can create a reality without evil but that does not necessarily mean it will have more good.  If evil exists, greater good can result from the variety of redemptive acts that occur throughout our world everyday that would not exist if evil did not exist.  I would argue that God in fact allowed for the possibility of evil seeing that a greater good would result from the choices of free will beings.

You just skated around the point again! What is this, the 6th time? God is infinitely powerful, which means he can make the world as good as he wants to without evil. There is no good that he could produce using evil that could he could not have produced without evil in the first place. If there was, then God is not omnipotent. Or, if He is doing it intentionally, then he is not omnibenevolent.

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
You can't improve a world

spumoni wrote:

 

Again, you are affirming an omnipotence that is alien to Christianity.  Omnipotence means the ability to do everything possible.  God can't make a round triangle because it is logically impossible.  This means the qualities of omnipotence are logically consistent.  God can create a reality without evil but that does not necessarily mean it will have more good.

 

 

Absence of actual evil would not logically imply less 'good', or be logically inconsistent with more 'good'. It would at least intuitively seem more likely to lead to a better world.

 

Quote:

 

If evil exists, greater good can result from the variety of redemptive acts that occur throughout our world everyday that would not exist if evil did not exist.  I would argue that  God in fact allowed for the possibility of evil seeing that a greater good would result from the choices of free will beings.

 

 

Now that is just sick. It sounds like letting someone suffer is ultimately good if it allows someone to display their 'goodness' by rescuing them.

That reminds of that practice in some Asian cultures, typically Buddhist, where you can buy caged birds and gain karma points by setting them free. I would regard it preferable that they never be caged in the first place and ones time and resources spent on actually helping people in difficulties. The less really bad things happen in the world, whether natural disasters or acts of man, the more resources availbale for actually improving the world.

 

 

You can't improve a world that is perfect.  hence, greater good is achieved by allowing certain amounts of evil to exist.  Otherwise, you have a system free of good  but it is one that has no free will agents or actions.  It is basically static.  Freedom requires a certain degree of contingent results.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:spumoni wrote:

spumoni wrote:

spumoni wrote:

 

Again, you are affirming an omnipotence that is alien to Christianity.  Omnipotence means the ability to do everything possible.  God can't make a round triangle because it is logically impossible.  This means the qualities of omnipotence are logically consistent.  God can create a reality without evil but that does not necessarily mean it will have more good.

 

 

Absence of actual evil would not logically imply less 'good', or be logically inconsistent with more 'good'. It would at least intuitively seem more likely to lead to a better world.

 

Quote:

 

If evil exists, greater good can result from the variety of redemptive acts that occur throughout our world everyday that would not exist if evil did not exist.  I would argue that  God in fact allowed for the possibility of evil seeing that a greater good would result from the choices of free will beings.

 

 

Now that is just sick. It sounds like letting someone suffer is ultimately good if it allows someone to display their 'goodness' by rescuing them.

That reminds of that practice in some Asian cultures, typically Buddhist, where you can buy caged birds and gain karma points by setting them free. I would regard it preferable that they never be caged in the first place and ones time and resources spent on actually helping people in difficulties. The less really bad things happen in the world, whether natural disasters or acts of man, the more resources availbale for actually improving the world.

 

 

You can't improve a world that is perfect.  hence, greater good is achieved by allowing certain amounts of evil to exist.  Otherwise, you have a system free of evil  but it is one that has no free will agents or actions.  It is basically static.  Freedom requires a certain degree of contingent results.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:spumoni

HisWillness wrote:

spumoni wrote:

I think you have posited correctly.  A greater benevolence is the result.  So the next proposition to test is what would be the purpose of such a state of affairs?  Can we trust a power that would desire to achieve such a benevolence etc.

I have difficulty imagining the goals of an entity that wanted to make sure its pets were tortured before it put them in a different (yet immutable) cage for the rest of their existence. Can we trust such a power is almost irrelevant. Could we resist such a power? I don't think it would be possible to do anything but what that entity wanted. So we would suffer and do exactly what it wants regardless, because its goal is that we should be tortured for its idea of benevolence.

No, I think that's an unlikely scenario.

 

I don't really follow your logic here.  You seem to suggest that the fact that an all powerful being allowing evil to exist makes it directly causally responsible.  That simply does not follow.  Its a secondary cause.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:spumoni

HisWillness wrote:

spumoni wrote:
Omnipotence means the ability to do everything possible.

That can't be right. God's existence relies on something intangible, immeasurable, and not conforming to nature existing. That's not possible. That would make God's omnipotence unable to bring God into existence. Which is crazy talk.

spumoni wrote:
God can create a reality without evil but that does not necessarily mean it will have more good.

But good and evil are judgements (even if it's God doing all the judging). So what you're saying is that God can create a reality that lacks behaviour He would judge as evil. But then why would God not do that if his judgement of evil is negative?

spumoni wrote:
If evil exists, greater good can result from the variety of redemptive acts that occur throughout our world everyday that would not exist if evil did not exist.  I would argue that  God in fact allowed for the possibility of evil seeing that a greater good would result from the choices of free will beings.

This is mind-bending. So God judges good and evil in your frame of reference. God is the way to understand what is right and wrong, good and evil. So God, who is omnipotent, can create a world without things He judges as evil, but chooses to keep the things he thinks are evil so that more good behaviour shows up? But then more evil does, in fact, mean more good. If God is limited by logical consistency, your version of God is colouring way outside the lines.

Logical continuity is simply a characteristic of God's own nature.  God's existence is axiomatic and His nature provides limitations for His own actions. 

Evil is a privation of good.  It is secondary quality or value.  God's nature and character is purely good.  Hence, evil comes about as a corruption of His creation.  If you know any of the story of the Bible, that in fact is what God did.  He created a reality absent of evil and human beings willfully brought about its corruption.  God judges good by His own nature and character as the supreme good being.  He chose to create a world with the possibility of evil coming into existence because of His desire to be in relationship with causally free agents.  Human beings are the ones that chose incorrectly and ushered in a reailty that was less than God's best. 


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:spumoni

butterbattle wrote:

spumoni wrote:

Again, you are affirming an omnipotence that is alien to Christianity.  Omnipotence means the ability to do everything possible. God can't make a round triangle because it is logically impossible.  This means the qualities of omnipotence are logically consistent.

No, omnipotence means the ability to do everything. The ability to do everything possible is a laughable definition; the whole point of a God concept is that the God can do what is supposed to be impossible. If it's possible, then it can be done; if God only does what is possible, then why call him God? Furthermore, if God can't do something, then he is not omnipotent, and Christians need to stop using the word. 

Quote:
God can create a reality without evil but that does not necessarily mean it will have more good.  If evil exists, greater good can result from the variety of redemptive acts that occur throughout our world everyday that would not exist if evil did not exist.  I would argue that God in fact allowed for the possibility of evil seeing that a greater good would result from the choices of free will beings.

You just skated around the point again! What is this, the 6th time? God is infinitely powerful, which means he can make the world as good as he wants to without evil. There is no good that he could produce using evil that could he could not have produced without evil in the first place. If there was, then God is not omnipotent. Or, if He is doing it intentionally, then he is not omnibenevolent.

 

 

 

who is the Christian here?  You can keeping arguing against a non-existent version of omnipotence if you want.  That is not the one posited by most christians.  Omnipotence means the ability to everything logically possible.  God's power is not limited if something in fact is not logically possible no matter what one's power.  It is simply a logically consistent being.  I would agree with you that asserting a being that can do logically impossible things is non-sense.  However, Christianity would not fall under that category.

Look, you can create a world without evil.  However, it is not clear at all whether that is a desirable world for you would have to argue for the lack of freedom of agency for such a world.  I'd recommend Alvin Plantinga on this as he is the world's foremost philosopher in this area.  I believe your assertion about no good is impossible to produce without evil is simply incorrect.  You have no redemptive, corrective, salvific elements in that world and in fact have no free will either.  If God creates a world and allows for the possibility for evil, there is nothing there to argue against omnibenevolence.  Especially if that God provides a means for people to correct injustice and eradicate evil.