God cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving (ancient, origin, choices)

[Hueffenhardt]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Why argue the Omni's as if they were anything other than the product of human hubris demanding that God MUST possess these paradoxical Omni's or He is NOT sufficiently God? Who are we puny nothings to decide what God MUST be to qualify as our God? God just IS and God is far more than anything we morons could possibly conceive in our limited brains. The Omni's we created are self-contradicting BS, period! Everything we know tells us that ALL LIFE must develop to overcome and endure whatever the environment presents. During that process . . . there will be suffering, period. How do we know our God did NOT have to overcome and endure in a similar way. The arrogance of humanity boggles the mind.

I never claimed that god could not be god if he did not have such and such a quality. All I am saying in this thread is that if a god does exist, it absolutely cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving. It seems like you agree with me on that point. If so, I wish you would say it more clearly that when you use your philosophical mind and training on this topic you find that Hueffenhardt is correct, god cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving. I don't need your validation because I know my reasoning is sound, but perhaps if a theists acknowledges I am right, other theists will actually permit themselves to follow the logic all the way through.

Their main problem is they refuse to really consider what an all-powerful god could do.

I don't know why it is so difficult for Woodrow and Theophane and King David to see it. I'll respond to their posts specifically later, but I have already addressed every point they raised many times earlier in this thread.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

I never claimed that god could not be god if he did not have such and such a quality. All I am saying in this thread is that if a god does exist, it absolutely cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving. It seems like you agree with me on that point. If so, I wish you would say it more clearly that when you use your philosophical mind and training on this topic you find that Hueffenhardt is correct, god cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving. I don't need your validation because I know my reasoning is sound, but perhaps if a theists acknowledges I am right, other theists will actually permit themselves to follow the logic all the way through. Their main problem is they refuse to really consider what an all-powerful could could do.

I don't know why it is so difficult for Woodrow and Theophane and King David to see it. I'll respond to their posts specifically later, but I have already addressed every point they raised many times earlier in this thread.

I agree with Hueff. The Omni's are self-contradicting and can NOT be simultaneously attributed to God. They are human fabrications to make God sufficiently impressive to be God. We have no conceivable way of knowing exactly what God's attributes or capabilities ARE. To presume that they MUST meet our arbitrary standards is absurd. Is that clear enough, Hueff?

[Hueffenhardt]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I agree with Hueff. The Omni's are self-contradicting and can NOT be simultaneously attributed to God. They are human fabrications to make God sufficiently impressive to be God. We have no conceivable way of knowing exactly what God's attributes or capabilities ARE. To presume that they MUST meet our arbitrary standards is absurd. Is that clear enough, Hueff?

Thanks!

Woodrow and KingDavid,

The main problem of those who do not see that god cannot be all-powerful and all-loving is they refuse to really consider what an all-powerful god could do; that he could give us challenges without suffering, that he could accomplish any purpose he had for our suffering without our suffering because he could define every concept. If his purpose for our suffering was the sole goal of having us suffer, then he is a sadist. Any other goal could be accomplished without our suffering by an all-powerful god who controls all variables. He is not working with pre-existing life rules or relationships or learning styles; he gets to define it all if he is all powerful. So, why invent suffering if there was another way that is exactly as effective? If someone claims that one cannot learn as effectively without suffering, then one is acknowledging god cannot be all powerful because he can't create the conditions for effective learning without suffering. That begs the question who made it such that effective learning can only come through suffering?

We don't have to be all knowing to draw this conclusion because god's all-powerfulness can take care of every single possibility regardless of whether we can conceive of those possibilities or not. Whatever his purposes are (again we don't have to know what they are) he could accomplish without sacrificing effectiveness one bit without our suffering if he were all powerful because he can define every concept, every accomplishment, every relationship between human attributes, the procedures to acquire attributes, in short every variable and every law of how the universe and life works. So, suffering is irrelevant because he could accomplish his goals perfectly with or without suffering. An all-loving god would not makes us endure purposeless suffering, and again all suffering is purposeless because whatever purpose suffering serves could be met without our suffering, which makes suffering purposeless. So, either god is not all-loving, or he is not all-powerful, or neither.

[KingDavid8]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

The main problem of those who do not see that god cannot be all-powerful and all-loving is they refuse to really consider what an all-powerful god could do; that he could give us challenges without suffering, that he could accomplish any purpose he had for our suffering without our suffering because he could define every concept.

You seem to think that the fact that God could have done it another way means that He should have done it another way. Unless we would know all of the factors involved, there's no way we can say this with certainty. I doubt that God's sole focus in creating it all was about causing as little suffering as possible. I'm sure He had other considerations in mind and needed to strike a balance between them.

If his purpose for our suffering was the sole goal of having us suffer, then he is a sadist.

True. But I seriously doubt He had any "sole goal" at all, much less this one in particular. I'm sure God had many purposes in mind, probably far more than any human can possibly fathom.

Any other goal could be accomplished without our suffering by an all-powerful god who controls all variables.

Again, unless you know all of the factors involved (and neither of us do), then this can't be stated with certainty.

He is not working with pre-existing life rules or relationships or learning styles; he gets to define it all if he is all powerful. So, why invent suffering if there was another way that is exactly as effective?

And how do you know that there is another way that is exactly as effective?

If someone claims that one cannot learn as effectively without suffering, then one is acknowledging god cannot be all powerful because he can't create the conditions for effective learning without suffering.

That He didn't do it a certain way isn't evidence that He couldn't do it a certain way - just that He chose not to do it a certain way. This is a common error I see skeptics make, assuming that God not doing something a certain way is evidence that God was incapable of doing it that way. God not doing it a certain way is more likely evidence that God simply didn't choose to do it that way

We don't have to be all knowing to draw this conclusion because god's all-powerfulness can take care of every single possibility regardless of whether we can conceive of those possibilities or not.

You seem to think that our inability to understand all of the factors involved is a problem for our side, but not for yours. It's an equal problem for both of us, I'm afraid. God's all-powerfulness and all-knowingness means that God CAN do certain things, but it doesn't mean that His doing it is the all-around best option.

Whatever his purposes are (again we don't have to know what they are) he could accomplish without sacrificing effectiveness one bit without our suffering if he were all powerful because he can define every concept, every accomplishment, every relationship between human attributes, the procedures to acquire attributes, in short every variable and every law of how the universe and life works. So, suffering is irrelevant because he could accomplish his goals perfectly with or without suffering.

In order to say this with certainly, you would have to know all of the factors involved. Could He accomplish all of His goals perfectly with or without suffering? Maybe, but in my opinion, probably not. That would depend on what His goals are, how we fit into them, what He expects of our character and to what degree we are meant to rely on ourselves, each other, and God. Empathy is frequently the result of suffering, and empathy is a good thing. Sure, God could just press a button and increase empathy in anyone He wants to, but then there's a lack of character on our part, since the empathy doesn't come from us.

An all-loving god would not makes us endure purposeless suffering, and again all suffering is purposeless because whatever purpose suffering serves could be met without our suffering, which makes suffering purposeless.

That's an opinion. But unless you know all of the factors involved, it's nothing more than an opinion. Of course, my disagreement with what you're saying is also an opinion on my part. Neither of us can know for certain one way or the other.

So, either god is not all-loving, or he is not all-powerful, or neither.

Or He is both. We're both too limited for either one of us to say for certain.

[Woodrow LI]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

Thanks!

Woodrow and KingDavid,

The main problem of those who do not see that god cannot be all-powerful and all-loving is they refuse to really consider what an all-powerful god could do; that he could give us challenges without suffering, that he could accomplish any purpose he had for our suffering without our suffering because he could define every concept. If his purpose for our suffering was the sole goal of having us suffer, then he is a sadist. Any other goal could be accomplished without our suffering by an all-powerful god who controls all variables. He is not working with pre-existing life rules or relationships or learning styles; he gets to define it all if he is all powerful. So, why invent suffering if there was another way that is exactly as effective? If someone claims that one cannot learn as effectively without suffering, then one is acknowledging god cannot be all powerful because he can't create the conditions for effective learning without suffering. That begs the question who made it such that effective learning can only come through suffering?

We don't have to be all knowing to draw this conclusion because god's all-powerfulness can take care of every single possibility regardless of whether we can conceive of those possibilities or not. Whatever his purposes are (again we don't have to know what they are) he could accomplish without sacrificing effectiveness one bit without our suffering if he were all powerful because he can define every concept, every accomplishment, every relationship between human attributes, the procedures to acquire attributes, in short every variable and every law of how the universe and life works. So, suffering is irrelevant because he could accomplish his goals perfectly with or without suffering. An all-loving god would not makes us endure purposeless suffering, and again all suffering is purposeless because whatever purpose suffering serves could be met without our suffering, which makes suffering purposeless. So, either god is not all-loving, or he is not all-powerful, or neither.

I will agree with you that God(swt) could test us without us facing even a moment of discomfort. Our pain and suffering is not to serve God(swt) as he has no needs. But us humans are created with needs. While even before our creation God(swt) already knew which of us will choose heaven and which will choose hellfire. Yes he could have eliminated all of the middle steps and simply placed the ones who will go to heaven into heaven instead of this physical existence. he could have spared those who will choose hellfire simply by not creating them. Yet, if all of this were done, we humans would never known the pain and trials of the physical world. we would have no reason to no existence without God(swt), we would never make a self choice over what we want. Here is where Islam and christianity differ. Us Muslims belief we have to make an effort to want heaven and strive to earn it even while knowing we cannot earn it and depend on the mercy of God(swt) to reward our intentions and efforts. Nothing to earn if we do not have hardships to overcome. No self awareness of personal experience and personal trials if we do not face them. Life is not perfect and not necessarily enjoyable at all times. but it is a gift as it gives all of us the equal opportunity to discover God(swt) and to do our best to serve his will even when we do not want to. Life is not perfect and is often filled with what we will see as injustices, but through these tribulations we come to earn the rewards of God(swt) Life is not a free trip and is designed to test us in all things while teaching us how to be compassionate of others and learning the cruelty of life when it is limited to seeing only the physical aspects of life.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

That He didn't do it a certain way isn't evidence that He couldn't do it a certain way - just that He chose not to do it a certain way. This is a common error I see skeptics make, assuming that God not doing something a certain way is evidence that God was incapable of doing it that way. God not doing it a certain way is more likely evidence that God simply didn't choose to do it that way.

Which means that IF he could have done things without causing suffering but chose to do it in a way that does involve suffering....he wants to see us suffer and that equals....sadism.

[Blue Hue]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

Thanks!

Woodrow and KingDavid,

The main problem of those who do not see that god cannot be all-powerful and all-loving is they refuse to really consider what an all-powerful god could do; that he could give us challenges without suffering, that he could accomplish any purpose he had for our suffering without our suffering because he could define every concept. If his purpose for our suffering was the sole goal of having us suffer, then he is a sadist. Any other goal could be accomplished without our suffering by an all-powerful god who controls all variables. He is not working with pre-existing life rules or relationships or learning styles; he gets to define it all if he is all powerful. So, why invent suffering if there was another way that is exactly as effective? If someone claims that one cannot learn as effectively without suffering, then one is acknowledging god cannot be all powerful because he can't create the conditions for effective learning without suffering. That begs the question who made it such that effective learning can only come through suffering?

We don't have to be all knowing to draw this conclusion because god's all-powerfulness can take care of every single possibility regardless of whether we can conceive of those possibilities or not. Whatever his purposes are (again we don't have to know what they are) he could accomplish without sacrificing effectiveness one bit without our suffering if he were all powerful because he can define every concept, every accomplishment, every relationship between human attributes, the procedures to acquire attributes, in short every variable and every law of how the universe and life works. So, suffering is irrelevant because he could accomplish his goals perfectly with or without suffering. An all-loving god would not makes us endure purposeless suffering, and again all suffering is purposeless because whatever purpose suffering serves could be met without our suffering, which makes suffering purposeless. So, either god is not all-loving, or he is not all-powerful, or neither.

Man is obviously not created as we may assume in a life... Man must mutually continue in the creation of himself...can this be understood and accepted ?

Value cannot be perceived without a contribution in perseverence

Perseverance is not possible without self sacrifice to the immediate self wish , transitory or otherwise in the human being...IOW , there is no value in self understood individualism without perseverance.

By virtue of dismay to pain and suffering, we have perseverance in effort away from dis-comfort. Without the distasteful initiative, there is no value in avoiding things which contradict the nature of our hurtful bodies.

Perseverance enables participation in our unique individual contribution toward our very own creation. We are mutually self creating our intended true self . Joining the creator . Without pain and suffering we would be complete forms with no self "understood contribution allowing for happiness"

What can one be happy for otherwise.....exactly ? (examples exempt from perseverance required

Is ultimate pain and suffering ridiculous or even a form of madness in obstruction to the human body's initiative...yes it kills. Its over.

What is over exactly? perseverance. The very reality which stands witness to the final product "mutually" created . Without pain and suffering or perseverance, there is no self understood witness for comprehension in value, no happiness in self .

An individual cannot be joyful unless there is a reason to substantiate. Even the admiration of another is psychologically connected to perseverance. (another topic

A joint effort..... God joins man in the creation of humanity each and every day. More power or less obstruction re survival, the created being would go about un-natural ways of eliminating perseverence...we know this. Man is supposed to go along naturally to show trust in return,for trust given in the on-going act of his own created worth

Logically man has been trusted with developing and nurturing his very own self created end product. Trust is a form of respect, reliance ,admiration, agreement , all of which define care and hope. These attributes cannot be left un-spoken for, in the deliberation of a God idea.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

Which is true if our purpose on earth is to enjoy life and be free of trials and tribulations. We are here for a purpose. That purpose is to learn and to be tested by choices and hardships. We need hardships and injustices as the fertilizer to grow. We can not overcome injustices unless they are here for us to face.

I think the point was that if God is a "person" then it should be reminded that it takes more than one person to decide what's fair. I mean, how Omnibenevolent is it to decide purpose and destinies for other creatures simply because you think you created them and that gives you the right to treat them as unequal property?

If we do a thought experiment, that would be like creating the i-robots without the three fundamental laws and then punishing them for not following them.

who decides the purpose of all the infants and fetuses which die?

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Which means that IF he could have done things without causing suffering but chose to do it in a way that does involve suffering....he wants to see us suffer and that equals....sadism.

So is man being mortal a sign of love or a sign of sadism?
I mean what is the point of intelligence (let alone knowledge) when you're immortal?


Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

The main problem of those who do not see that god cannot be all-powerful and all-loving is they refuse to really consider what an all-powerful god could do; that he could give us challenges without suffering, that he could accomplish any purpose he had for our suffering without our suffering because he could define every concept. If his purpose for our suffering was the sole goal of having us suffer, then he is a sadist.

Let me ask you a question: How would you view a father who allows his child to follow his own path (read: make his own mistakes and learn from them).
I see that as a sign of love, but I guess that you would only see this father as a sadist because he allows his child to hurt and be hurt.
So you could say that my theory is that a universe without suffering also is a universe without individualism (or freedom).

[js1mom]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

My argument is this: If god were all-loving, he would want to save us from needless suffering. If he were all-powerful, he would be able to save us from needless suffering. If needless suffering exists, either god is not all-loving or not all-powerful or not either. Said another way, if needless suffering exists, then god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful.

Free will, baby, free will.

He is loving enough to have wanted beings with which to share His creation...

He is powerful enough to have created us...

He is loving enough to give us free will...

He is powerful enough to resist the urge to interfere... ***

(*** Unless He is asked very sincerely through prayer and is tuned into us at the time of our prayers. You may say, "But why isn't He tuned into me at all times?" Well, if you aren't tuned into Him at all times, why should He stay tuned into you at all times?)