Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TL;DR - The problem of evil argument fails because it relies on the premise that an all-powerful and loving god couldn't have or probably doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering/evil.
"omnipotent" would mean "morally sufficient reasons are not binding."
Which leads us to the other religious problem, the Euthyphro Dilemma: Is Good objective and Monogod is just it's messenger/epitome, or is anything that God does "good" because he is free and sovereign?
My form and application of it are probably messier than some others', especially given that it was orignally about the Olympian Gods of that time, just like the Hippocratic Oath.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 01-19-2019 at 11:51 PM..
What is the generally accepted meaning of omnipotence?
It seems we have a lot of Jordan B. Peterson's in the building these days.
They keep talking about "all-capable if given the requirements" rather than "all-powerful" but still calling it "omnipotence." Most people don't think of omnipotence as carrying "ifs" or such other limitations around.
You should probably quote full sentences, if your aim is to convince thinking people that I've contradicted myself or some such?
Well there's absolutely nothing incoherent about it. It simply means that a being possessing every power will still not be able to make contradictions true. So for example, an omnipotent being couldn't create a square circle. That wouldn't mean the omnipotent being wasn't all-powerful, just that such a "power" couldn't exist in the first place.
Or so you claim, there might be reasons unknown to you of why a circle could be a square.
The above is a parroting of rhetoric you have used.
And let's add some Deepak Chopra just for the hell of it: In fact, quantum physics has shown that dogmatic logic is contradicted in reality.
The word you are looking for is "omnibenevolent" not just "benevolent." Sure "benevolence" by itself doesn't require every good action possible, but omnibenevolence does require at least the "best" good action.
Which gets us nowhere, because even "omnibenevolence" cannot be responsibly defined as "always doing what I think he should". And without substantiation of the problem of evil's key premise, that's all you're left with - the claim that you think god should do something different.
Quote:
So YES, there is a contradiction. "Omnipotent" and "omnibenevolent" would directly lead to the logical conclusion of "capable and accomplished loving-heroism" and most people don't see procrastination or dragging things out as "loving" or "heroism."
It doesn't matter how we see it; what matters is what the situation is. And no person with finite knowledge is going to know with any certainty what an omniscient being should/should not do with the world. You can dance around this all you like; until you can show that god could not/probably doesn't have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil/suffering, there is no contradiction to speak of.
Quote:
A monotheist would have to invent a good reason why the very capable and lovingly willing (omnibenevolent) God would not do the right thing "just yet."
Or, point out that you've no basis for concluding that every step isn't the right thing Seriously, where is your argument/evidence for that? Because it doesn't make you happy? Who ever said the right thing should make us feel good? Who ever established that allowing pain and suffering is never the best action?
Quote:
A perfect being living only in and out of itself can't be "still completely perfect" if it allowed imperfection to exist "for just a millisecond, but then it was fixed."
Of course it could. The state of the world and god are numerically different entities. But I suspect there's some equivocation going on here (hope not). Allowing imperfection in the world =/= allowing the plan/process to become imperfect.
Quote:
"true" Mercy contradicts "true" Justice
Maybe, maybe not. How are you defining these terms?
Quote:
and "true" omnipotence contradicts "true" omnibenevolence only when there are things within "omnipotence realm/reach" which are not "omnibenevolent".
This is a bit incoherent, but it sounds similar to the equivocation I'm already suspecting. Allowing "things" to exist that are not omnibenevolent would not translate into a lack of omnibenevolence on god's part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
"omnipotent" would mean "morally sufficient reasons are not binding."
What do you mean, "are not binding"? Again, if the aim is logically impossible, it's not a power god lacks (there is no such power as the ability to make contradictions true).
Quote:
Which leads us to the other religious problem, the Euthyphro Dilemma
Which is a false dilemma. God could simply be what Plato called "the good", and his commands would just be expressions of his nature (moral goodness). This way he would never be arbitrarily making up what's good nor referring to something outside of himself to establish what's good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Or so you claim, there might be reasons unknown to you of why a circle could be a square.
Oh the lengths one will go to, to argue with a defender of Christianity. Now we're being stubborn on the idea of a shape with corners but without corners at the same time
"omnipotent" would mean "morally sufficient reasons are not binding."
Which leads us to the other religious problem, the Euthyphro Dilemma: Is Good objective and Monogod is just it's messenger/epitome, or is anything that God does "good" because he is free and sovereign?
William Lane Craig pretends this is a false dichotomy by asserting God with a capital G IS objectively good. Except that does not get him out of the problem that an objective morality must be external to a god, whether a god is objectively good or not.
An objectively moral god is a subset of objective morality, it is not an alternative set.
It seems we have a lot of Jordan B. Peterson's in the building these days.
They keep talking about "all-capable if given the requirements" rather than "all-powerful" but still calling it "omnipotence." Most people don't think of omnipotence as carrying "ifs" or such other limitations around.
I find certain religious people change the definition of all powerful depending on the argument.
What we see with Vic is Christian apologetics in disguise.
Awww poor mystic!
yeah raf, "apologetics" is not evidence against or for anything. "apologetics" is used by low level atheist that can't really describe how the universe works past what they get from other atheist. To me anyway.
what I take from vic, and please point out where I am wrong. I see him saying, once we make up stuff, like omni, we can defend it. Rather easily too because we don't have to use reality.
I see, describing the god of bible as some evil, malice ridden entity, in the exact same manor as I do when I see people describe it a this all lovin perfect thing-a-ma-jjig. Neither are real and both can be defended because defending those two stances is not based on how the universe is working.
so what do we do now that both stances are clearly wrong?
why would I be asked to choose between two stances that are wrong? In this case right Raf? some things in life leave us with no good choices, I didn't see this as one.
"omnipotent" would mean "morally sufficient reasons are not binding."
Which leads us to the other religious problem, the Euthyphro Dilemma: Is Good objective and Monogod is just it's messenger/epitome, or is anything that God does "good" because he is free and sovereign?
My form and application of it are probably messier than some others', especially given that it was orignally about the Olympian Gods of that time, just like the Hippocratic Oath.
err, just starting at some enty is the overseer is the religious problem. anything is possible with that initially incorrect base belief. that's what the problem is. once you say "yes, there is an omni thing." you can make up whatever you want.
what is your base statement that leads to your conclusions about what is going?
yeah, religion is wrong. what is your counterclaim?
Are the changes used to align a belief with observations?
No, it is to argue a god can do the impossible when the argument requires this, and then to argue the same god has limited powers when a different argument requires limited powers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously, where is your argument/evidence for that? Because it doesn't make you happy? Who ever said the right thing should make us feel good? Who ever established that allowing pain and suffering is never the best action?
