Contradiction of God's Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnibenevolence

[one_raven]

Abstention from interference does not necessarily imply malevolence.

The argument from evil is not a valid refutation of the Christian version of God for several reasons.

First and foremost is the concept of free will.
The Christian version of God is one that imparts free will on mankind.

Secondly, afterlife.
If the Christian ideal of the afterlife is valid, then death would be a release of this world of suffering.
Allowing someone to die, is inviting them into the reward of paradise everlasting.

Third, judgement, heaven and hell.
If you do not allow people the free will to perform evil acts, then you have nothing to judge their character on.
If, as many Christians see it, your time here on Earth is one of judgement of your character to see if you make it onto the guest list in heaven, God MUST allow you the free will to prove yourself worthy of the reward.
If you perform evil in exchange, you go to hell.
If you endure your suffering and are still a good person, then you are rewarded with heaven.

Lastly, eternity.
How much time do you have here on earth?
At the long end of the spectrum 100 years?
Regardless of how much you think you suffer in your time on Earth, how bad do relly think that is compared to the eternity of paradise that the Christian version of God is offering you?
If a child falls down and scrapes his knee pretty badly, in that moment he is experienceing what he considers vile suffering.
A few years later, he will be lucky to even remember it happened.
Do you really think that suffering here in Earth will amount to even a scraped knee after billions upon billions of years in paradise? And those billions upon billions of years are just the start.

If the Christian version of reality were true, it would be pretty damned pathetic, selfish and at the very least unappreciative to complain about the absurdly petty "suffering" you encounter here on earth.
If someone were to offer you unlimited riches tomorrow and for the rest of your life in exchange for giving them a penny out of your pocket today would you thank them or condemn them?

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

But this is not the chrisitian version, the free will is about making choices, and this is the christian version...God is no longer making the choices, u r the one who's goin to do it, in the after life living with God or not it's going to be ur choice...

But this suffering issue is ridiculous, it's a merely a tradition...Life for christians is something to live and be happy for, is a gift...And is decisive cause here is ur time to make ur chocie, with or without God?

At leats that's my conviction as a christian and i doubt that any priest or some profounded theologist can argue with that...(at least the ones who I've been arguing with)

Cause it's the way u see things that is different.

And believe me a human doesn't need someone to give him suffering, we can make ourselves suffer very well! DRAMA!

Edit: the new version Christianism makes things more easier and simple, it's people who make everything complicated.

 

[Brady]

Would you rather be given the opportunity to live and suffer sometimes, or never have been born? It's a question that doesn't need answering.

 

[delton]

The question has arisen, if God is all loving and powerfull, why dosn't he just save us all from sin right now??
The answer is God respects our free will, and that we must ask him to come into our heart and help us.. we must show that we want his love. Then he can save us from sin and we can spend eternity with him.

unfortunenly God can not just change us all into the perfect men and women he originally willed us to be, becuase Satan ruined his plan and we chose to follow him.

And think about this: can you show love to a robot? In order to show love there must be a longing for that love. God needs towork with us to express his love.

 

[Amp1]

I like the civility of this debate/discussion

There are plenty of good points in this thread. I really think One Raven has a good post. I'm tossing my hat into the ring with this post.

Assumptions(postulates): 1. 'God' has always existed and will always be
(Meaning from infinity past into infinity future)
2. 'God' has volition
3. 'God' cannot lie
4. 'God' is omnipresent
5. 'God' limits his/its omnipotence
6. 'God' is omnisciencient

a) Omnipresence is hypothosized on eternity of being, since 'God' is BEFORE space/time, it/he 'created' the universe within himself/itself because he/it was the only reality that existed. It is obvious that by this statement one can visualize a one to one corrospondence to the presence of 'God' and all particle and energy manifestations in the universe. Also apparent is the idea that the 'size/extent' of 'God' can easily exceed that of the universe. One can draw from the first premise and second premise that 'God' can be familiar with every event/occurance that happens anywhere and everywhere in the universe in a linear fashion as well as simultaneously.

(to be continued)

 

[Amp1]

The continuation

I need to modify postulate #5. It shold read: 'God' is omnipotent, God limits its/his omnipotence.

b) From #1,#4 & #5 I think that it is possible for me to state 1) Either 'God' is the underlying (foundation) of reality or 2) 'God' = 'Reality'

Now putting those definitions aside for the time being, I believe those tragic, negative and unexpected events mentioned in previous posts are part and parcel to 'God's' purpose/plan in giving us(mankind) freewill the ability to choose - choice and the power to reason.

Because 'God' has volition and it is widely circulated that 'God' loves us equally then chance occurances which are sometimes tragic do happen, its a part of living and likely does serve some purpose in the larger scheme of 'Life'. I can't and won't attempt to explain and don't profess to be cognizant of this plan or purpose in its entirety. I only am just starting to realize my role and I am a bit afraid but as I come to understand and more is revealed I find that by trusting this 'Higher Power' I am not dissappointed or let down.

 

[Jameson]

unfortunenly God can not just change us all into the perfect men and women he originally willed us to be, becuase Satan ruined his plan and we chose to follow him.

If God is all knowing, wouldn't He have forseen this event? Also, the great flood of the Bible occurred because people were not living life according to God's wishes. Wouldn't He have forseen this as well?

 

[selfAdjoint]

The usual explanation is that God has willingly blinded himself where human free will is concerned, or else he knows but wills not to intefere in the consequences.

An awful lot of brillian people have bought that argument, but it always seemed like special pleading to me. Even back when I considered myself religious.

 

[EnumaElish]

Define "God" as all powerful, all knowing, and all loving.

Premise: Their is pain and suffering in the world

1. If God is all knowing and all loving, He knows of the pains of the world and would want to stop them. Therefore He is not all powerfull.
2. If God is all powerful and all loving, He has the capability to stop pain and suffering. Therefore he is not all knowing.
3. If God is all powerful and all knowing, He knows of the pains of the world and can stop them. Therefore he is not all loving.

I. How do you know God agrees with your premise?

II. What if God agreed with it in letter but not in spirit because God's plans included pain and suffering for some kind of ultimate objective? Example: I set myself a physical, now-or-never challenge. During the course of it the pain makes me change my mind and I beg God to stop it. Would your hypothetical God end it, and let me blame myself to misery for having given up too soon?

III. What if God does not think in terms of "human agents" but some other entity? What if the agents in God's plans were whole galaxies? What if the only agent was the whole universe? What if it was God's self?

IV. I have been reading Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker. Intriguing.

 

[EnumaElish]

I think this has a formal name

"Evangelical atheism"?

 

[Amp1]

One thing about Jameson's statements is in #1, #2 & #3 the conclusion does not follow.

 

[Jameson]

One thing about Jameson's statements is in #1, #2 & #3 the conclusion does not follow.

Could you please expand on this comment?

 

[Amp1]

Sure Jameson

Originally Posted by Jameson
Define "God" as all powerful, all knowing, and all loving.

Premise: There is pain and suffering in the world

1. If God is all knowing and all loving, He knows of the pains of the world and would want to stop them. Therefore He is not all powerfull.

Your implying God is incapable of stopping the pains of the world because he is all loving and would want to stop the hurt/pain. Would and should, ie, as you state he is all knowing - should he stop the pains/suffering since he knows humans wouldn't be happy anyway, should he force humans to be joyful disallowing man's own freewill, since he knows this would not make humans happy. Does that mean he is incapable?

2. If God is all powerful and all loving, He has the capability to stop pain and suffering. Therefore he is not all knowing.

How does having the capability equate to not knowing.

3. If God is all powerful and all knowing, He knows of the pains of the world and can stop them. Therefore he is not all loving.

How does having power and knowing equate to not loving? Besides in my response to the first statement I kind da pointed out if he should.

In my original post, I left out at least two postulates - #7. God is Perfect and #8. God is Good
Peace

 

[learningphysics]

I. How do you know God agrees with your premise?

II. What if God agreed with it in letter but not in spirit because God's plans included pain and suffering for some kind of ultimate objective? Example: I set myself a physical, now-or-never challenge. During the course of it the pain makes me change my mind and I beg God to stop it. Would your hypothetical God end it, and let me blame myself to misery for having given up too soon?

So God won't or can't remove your misery when you give up too soon? That means he either doesn't know about your suffering (not omnicient)... doesn't care (not all-loving)... or is incapable of ending it (not omnipotent).

If God was all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, then you'd be able to finish the challenge without experiencing pain... or better yet, you'd be happy whether or not you completed the challenge. You'd be happy no matter what.

 

[EnumaElish]

So God won't or can't remove your misery when you give up too soon? That means he either doesn't know about your suffering (not omnicient)... doesn't care (not all-loving)... or is incapable of ending it (not omnipotent).

If God was all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, then you'd be able to finish the challenge without experiencing pain... or better yet, you'd be happy whether or not you completed the challenge. You'd be happy no matter what.

That's why God gave us antidepressants.

For the sake of argument, I will say: God is not omnicient, but God is not ignorant, either. God is more than knowing.

I will also say: God is not hating. But God is not loving, either. God is more than loving.

And I will say: God is not omnipotent. But God is not impotent. God is more than omnipotent.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

If God gave us the free will then he shouldn't interfere unless u want to, we cause pain to ourselves, it's not soemthing that falls on us from the heavens..

 

[Amp1]

We do some times cause pain on oursevles but unforseen events also happen to cause pain. That is not to say or imply that there is a 'God' or 'Devil' is the underlying cause behind such events, chance/probability is something that is necessary in order for free will to exist.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Pain depends on our own measures...

 

[one_raven]

If God is all knowing, wouldn't He have forseen this event? Also, the great flood of the Bible occurred because people were not living life according to God's wishes. Wouldn't He have forseen this as well?

That assumes that omniscient inherently implies the ability to see the entirety of the future, which I don't necessarily think it does. Arguing whether or not "omniscience" does or does not imply clairvoyance is a little silly because it is a semantical argument based on a false premise.
The Bible does not use the word "Omniscient" to describe God.

There are plenty of verses that portray God as wise, and knowing many things.

NIV Psalm 139:
1 O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.

NIV Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are everywhere,
keeping watch on the wicked and the good.

There are also some instances of God (or Jesus) knowing some things in the future, such as Matthew 24, but not necessarily ALL things.

All that can be safely assumed (within Biblical context) is that God has the ability to see all that happens, and know all we know.
Anything more is presumptuous doctrine.

Keeping in mind the semantics and limited scope of definitions...
Omniscient is all-knowing -just as Omnipotent means all-powerful.
What, however, DOES that imply?
If someone knows all that it is possible to know, is that being omniscient?
I think so.
If someone can do all that it is possible to do, is that being omnipotent?
I think so.

As I said in another post:

omnipotence means simply all-powerful.

By saying that it is a paradox to call God omnipotent since he can not defy logic is simply stating that God is limited by nothing more than the laws of existence.
It is a falsified catch-22...
If theists admit that God is not limited by the laws of existence, they are admitting that he is outside of existence or non-existent.
If they say that he is, they are admitting that his powers have limits.

It's crap.
Anything that is postulated to exist must inherently be limited to the laws of existence.
If the laws of existence are all that is limiting God, he can still be deemed omnipotent because he has the power and ability to do anything that it is conceivably possible or logically consistent to do.

Also, as pointed out by a few people here, even if he DOES know the future, why would he be obliged to intervene?
You know that, by all conceivable reason, that if you allow your child out of your sight for more than a second at any time during his life he is bound to get hurt. Scraped knees, splinters, falling off a skateboard, being hit with a baseball, falling out of a tree, falling in love and being dumped... You name it, it WILL happen. Does that mean that you do not love your child because you didn't keep it in a locked padded room for his entire life? Of course not.

Pain is a simple consequence of a temporary, fleeting and fragile existence here on Earth that MUST end in death.

Again, try and imagine what you currently consider "pain" within the context of eternal bliss following it.

If God was all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, then you'd be able to finish the challenge without experiencing pain... or better yet, you'd be happy whether or not you completed the challenge. You'd be happy no matter what.

If there was no chance of failure, there IS no challenge.
Without loss, there is no value.

 

[kcballer21]

That's why God gave us antidepressants.

For the sake of argument, I will say: God is not omnicient, but God is not ignorant, either. God is more than knowing.

I will also say: God is not hating. But God is not loving, either. God is more than loving.

And I will say: God is not omnipotent. But God is not impotent. God is more than omnipotent.

Cool, but why say anything at all. I mean:
And I will say: God is non-existent.

 

[Johann]

And I will say: God is non-existent.

Suppose the total life span of the universe to be tens of billions of years. Suppose also that during the whole of that time span, the probability of God existing is very small but greater than zero (I think even the most rabid atheist would concede this). Now consider this: except for about 100 years, during billions and billions of years the probability of God existing is higher than the probability of you existing.

I once told this to someone, and for a brief moment I thought he was about to quit being an atheist. But then he asked me what I thought that meant and I said, "I have no idea". He was rather disappointed

 

[kcballer21]

Suppose the total life span of the universe to be tens of billions of years. Suppose also that during the whole of that time span, the probability of God existing is very small but greater than zero (I think even the most rabid atheist would concede this). Now consider this: except for about 100 years, during billions and billions of years the probability of God existing is higher than the probability of you existing.

I once told this to someone, and for a brief moment I thought he was about to quit being an atheist. But then he asked me what I thought that meant and I said, "I have no idea". He was rather disappointed

And what if your friend suddenly decided to believe in God, then what? How does his life change? Does he become hopeful for an eternally blissful afterlife, or fearful of a tormented one? Does his moral philosophy change, how about his priorities? Was his life without purpose before, and now it would have meaning? My point is whether or not God exists, he ain't talking to me, or giving me any reason to believe that he does exist, and until he does (blatant break in the known laws of physics, say) I'll just assume it's myself and the rest of us.

Oh, i'll also accept the spontaneous dissappearance of cancer throughout the children of the world as evidence of a God (who's interested in the affairs of humans of course.)

 

[Amp1]

Even though god cares...

Why should god just GIVE MAN CARD BLANCHE to eternity.

We do some times cause pain on oursevles but unforseen events also happen to cause pain. That is not to say or imply that there is a 'God' or 'Devil' is the underlying cause behind such events, chance/probability is something that is necessary in order for free will to exist.

Something as tragic as cancer or MS also happens, its a component of life's downs and ups. Please, God forbid anyone close to anyone of us developing an incurable ailment. I don't wish it on anyone. But my cousin died from cancer, I accepted this. A friend of mine has it, I must accept this also. Another cousin has bone cancer, I must accept that. They still did and do their best to enjoy this life. And their perserverance is inspirational, how can I complain when I break a nail when they must face far worse.

 

[nameless]

1. If God is all knowing and all loving, He knows of the pains of the world and would want to stop them. Therefore He is not all powerfull.
2. If God is all powerful and all loving, He has the capability to stop pain and suffering. Therefore he is not all knowing.
3. If God is all powerful and all knowing, He knows of the pains of the world and can stop them. Therefore he is not all loving.

Sounds like selfish anthropomorphization! If some god knows that you are uncomfortable, which is really what you're whining about, awww pain and suffering 8( that this 'god' must for some reason wish to spare you these uncomfortable feelings and wave it's godly hand and make the 'boogey man' go away?

all powerful, all knowing, and all loving.

Besides, wouldn't YOU have to be 'all-knowing', 'all loving', 'all whatever...' to;
1) recognise these qualities in 'another', and
2) to be able to 'know' what another 'all knowing, etc...' being would do in those circumstances? You assume your personal 'understandings and values' as your god's. Exactly who creates whom?
Your questions are flawed from the outset.

 

[Doc Al]

Sounds like selfish anthropomorphization! If some god knows that you are uncomfortable, which is really what you're whining about, awww pain and suffering 8( that this 'god' must for some reason wish to spare you these uncomfortable feelings and wave it's godly hand and make the 'boogey man' go away?

You miss the point. The typical characterization of "god" as "all powerful, all knowing, and all loving." is not Jameson's. Jameson is critiquing that characteriztion as self-contradictory.

 

[nameless]

It would seem to me that merely accepting the whole 'omni' routine is error on its face as (again) wouldn't one need to 'be it' to 'recognise it'?

His critique was full of the same cognitive errors. Too many ass-umptions for my taste. I was critiquing the critique as error ridden.

I don't think that I missed the point, except, of course, if he was being facetious in his 'argument' to point out the cognitive fallacies of the agerage 'goddists'. But the replies didn't indicate this was the case.

And if I truly miss the point, it certainly wouldn't be the first time!
*__-

 

[devil-fire]

i agree with jameson even after looking over all the replys. the idea that we can complain about pain not being fixed by god because we don't know what's really good for us is something i disagree with.

if god let's mass sufferings happening (such as genocide) how could he be all-loving unless he is all-loving of something other then the victim? genocide is good for us? no. i don't buy that, if that's true then we have nothing to thank that god for.

maybe god cares about the species instead of the individual and Hasn't given us free will because he has made those who make others suffer for a cause they do not willingly support, the cause of the species.

if god gave us free will, he gave us the ability to fight his will and prevent it from being done (since everything is his will). if we can fight his will and prevent its effects, he is not all powerful. if his will is that we fight his power, then he can not be all loving because he is letting us make each other suffer. what is the reason behind letting those who can better themselves by the suffering of others continue to prosper?

 

[nameless]

i agree with jameson even after looking over all the replys. the idea that we can complain about pain not being fixed by god because we don't know what's really good for us is something i disagree with.

Is that not what the 'goddists' tell us? God knows best? "Let go and let god"?

if god let's mass sufferings happening (such as genocide) how could he be all-loving unless he is all-loving of something other then the victim?

On second thought, perhaps because 'love' is a man invented concept (like god, I guess, at least our concept of 'it'), which we cannot even agree on a consensus definition, I was going to ask how we can assume that god's 'understanding' is equivalent to ours. But if you are going to assume that god is loving as is claimed, than I guess that you'll also have to swallow the 'gods ways are above our ways' sideways shuffle. I don't remember god ever defining love in scripture (even if he did write it all him/itself). So, we do not have sufficient data to challenge god on the subject. If we anthropomorphise, than he cannot be all loving because he would have to conform to our concepts.

genocide is good for us? no. i don't buy that, if that's true then we have nothing to thank that god for.

When I was a Xtian, the local doctrine at church was to thank god for everything, even the painful, as god knows best and is in control of our surrendered/sacrificed lives... see above 'sideways shuffle'. You can't have your cake and eat it too...

if god gave us free will, he gave us the ability to fight his will and prevent it from being done (since everything is his will).

Can't be much of a god...

if we can fight his will and prevent its effects, he is not all powerful.

Perhaps it is his 'will' that you think that you have 'free will' and are capable of thwarting gods 'will'?

if his will is that we fight his power, then he can not be all loving because he is letting us make each other suffer.

Suffering is of our own making, as is the end of suffering. We won't find one without experiencing the other. To allow us to grow, through the rain, can be considered 'loving'.

what is the reason behind letting those who can better themselves by the suffering of others continue to prosper?

It seems to me that 'suffering' is on a strictly individual basis to be dealt with as such. I can be in pain, and not suffer. Or I can. It is relating to my state of consciousness. Which will not ever evolve if 'suffered' to live a life of comfort and ease. Perhaps your 'loving father' knows this too?

I feel more and more that I must be missing the point. Are we attributing attributes to our concept of a god and claiming that It displays these attributes poorly due to what we conceive of as It's 'behavior'? Is this what we are doing?

 

[EnumaElish]

You miss the point. The typical characterization of "god" as "all powerful, all knowing, and all loving." is not Jameson's. Jameson is critiquing that characteriztion as self-contradictory.

Sure, but all he has "proven" is that this specificly anthromorphic god is really easy to disprove. Rationalists, feylesufs, mystics (e.g. sufis) and kabbalists wrestled with this kind of statements for centuries; it is as if Jameson has reinvented Flintstones' wheel and it has four corners.

 

[nameless]

Ohhhhhhhhh...
Never mind.
*__-

Wait a min. If god is supposed to be all loving, and its in His contract, and 'he's' not delivering.. Should we sue 'him'? Put 'him' on trial? Has 'he' lived up to his 'omniscience clause'? Sue! The only devil's advocate position I could imagine would be to be god's defence. Jeeeez! That would be a stretch for me, but.. I'd try it. I say put 'him' on the stand and make 'him' answer! If found wanting, we could cancel 'his' contract and send 'him' to another planet.. in another galaxy! Of course, if he actually proves to actually be 'omni', well, he can do as he pleases I guess. ;)
What say ye?

Oh, about that square wheel? It's still as rickety as it ever was. Why drag that nonsense out of the garage?