Contradiction of God's Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnibenevolence

[Jameson]

I think this has a formal name, to which I do not know, so I will try my best to explain these statements which I argue to be a contradiction of God.



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.


Sorry if this isn't formal enough. I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this. I want to see another side of thinking besides my own.

Jameson

 

[Lisa!]

"Human's wisdom compares to God's wisdom is a kind of madness!"
So maybe his definition of pain is different from yours.maybe it's not pain at all.I think We should first have a definition of pain base on the purpose of our existence!
And then I think if we could prove that he's not all knowing,all powers, and all loving, we should really reconsider our beliefs.I mean somehow it could disprove God!I prefer not to talk about it anymore before you'd answer my question.


(you know for example parents force their child to eat some biter drug or go to school,the child thinks it culdn't be the worse and it's a pain but the parents force him to do it because they want him to get health or be educated!the child doesn't know the value of education when he's too small.)

 

[DaveC426913]

...and would want to stop them...

This is the fatal flaw in your argument - to presume you understand Him and to presume that His actions are constrained by your logic. Have you heard the expression "God moves in mysterious ways"?

He gave us free will so that we could try to work out our own problems. That can't happen without some pain and loss. To do so would reduce us to clockwork machinery - something that can't be loved.

Think about parenting your child. When your toddler insists on using his balloon as a chair, despite your warning him that it'll pop, do you remove it so it doesn't happen? Or do you let him pop his balloon and land on his butt?

A child cannot learn without experiencing cause and effect. Are you being an unloving parent because you let your child experience loss and pain?



(Disclaimer: I speak as Devil's Advocate, and profess no personal belief in God or His motives.)

 

[Doc Al]

I think this has a formal name, to which I do not know

This is often called the Argument from Evil.

 

[Evo]

I think this has a formal name, to which I do not know, so I will try my best to explain these statements which I argue to be a contradiction of God.



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.

That doesn't make sense, how would knowing the pains of the world and wanting to stop them equate to "therefore he is not all powerful"? Did you mean to say that he cannot stop them?

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

Again, this makes no sense. You say "He has the capability to stop pain and suffering." What has that got to do with him not being 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.

Here I assume you are inferring that he is not all loving because he can stop the pain but won't. The god in the christian bible is a mean, egotistical, vengeful, spiteful god. That is why I choose not to believe in the biblical version of God.

 

[Garth]

Originally Posted by Jameson
I think this has a formal name, to which I do not know

This is often called the Argument from Evil.

Its theological name is 'Theodicy', there is a whole discipline in theology focusing on this issue.

Garth

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

That doesn't make sense, how would knowing the pains of the world and wanting to stop them equate to "therefore he is not all powerful"? Did you mean to say that he cannot stop them?

Again, this makes no sense. You say "He has the capability to stop pain and suffering." What has that got to do with him not being all knowing?

Here I assume you are inferring that he is not all loving because he can stop the pain but won't. The god in the christian bible is a mean, egotistical, vengeful, spiteful god. That is why I choose not to believe in the biblical version of God.

You choose not to believe in the biblical God because you don't like him? Wicked, I choose not to believe in Tony Blair!

Jameson's points did make sense, if you accept some easy-to-deduce axioms (axia? axi?). In point 1, if God is all knowing and all loving He would stop pain, so that He doesn't suggests He cannot (if He could and didn't, He would not be a loving God), and therefore that He is not all-powerful. In point 2, if God is all powerful and all loving, then He must not know the pain of man or He would end it. In point 3, if God is all powerful and all knowing, He knows the pain of man, can end it, but chooses not to so is not loving. This is the most contentious... God might be a 'tough-love' kinda guy.

 

[Evo]

You choose not to believe in the biblical God because you don't like him?

Yep, he's not my kind of god. My god is a nice guy.

 

[learningphysics]

I think this has a formal name, to which I do not know, so I will try my best to explain these statements which I argue to be a contradiction of God.



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.


Sorry if this isn't formal enough. I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this. I want to see another side of thinking besides my own.

Jameson

Your argument is essentially correct. This is the reason I'm an atheist. The usual counter-arguments I see involve changing what the words "love", "pain" and "suffering" actually mean. However keeping our common sense definitions of these words... the argument is solid.

 

[Jameson]

Think about parenting your child. When your toddler insists on using his balloon as a chair, despite your warning him that it'll pop, do you remove it so it doesn't happen? Or do you let him pop his balloon and land on his butt?

I see the reasoning in teaching someone a lesson, but we are talking about a much grander scale with much worse things than popping a balloon. When someone dies, he/she will not be able to learn a lesson, as that person is DEAD. If I shoot you because you stole something of mine, what lesson did you get out of that?

That doesn't make sense, how would knowing the pains of the world and wanting to stop them equate to "therefore he is not all powerful"? Did you mean to say that he cannot stop them?

I am saying that if the defined God knows of all the pains and wishes to stop them but does not, then the only logical conclusion is that He is unable to stop these things.

Again, this makes no sense. You say "He has the capability to stop pain and suffering." What has that got to do with him not being all knowing?

If the defined God wants to stop pain and suffering and has the power to this, but does not, the only logical conclusion is that He is not aware of the pain and suffering.

Here I assume you are inferring that he is not all loving because he can stop the pain but won't. The god in the christian bible is a mean, egotistical, vengeful, spiteful god. That is why I choose not to believe in the biblical version of God.

The reason I did not say the Christian God is because there are so many arguable points about His(Christian) qualities. For this reason, I defined the God in my first post by only three attributes.

Jameson

 

[Lisa!]

I see the reasoning in teaching someone a lesson, but we are talking about a much grander scale with much worse things than popping a balloon. When someone dies, he/she will not be able to learn a lesson, as that person is DEAD. If I shoot you because you stole something of mine, what lesson did you get out of that?

Please clear up something:
1."do you think that human is all knowing ,too?"
If he's not ,so you shouldn't expect yourself to understand what God does!because for sure when you're not all knowing you can't understand someone who knows everything!
IF he's, so he doen't need a God!
2."what do you mean when you say he's all knowing?"
I think all knowing means he knows everything>I mean he knows past,present and future.he knows what will happen in future!"suppose you know the future.so you should know what will happen to the rubber in the future.so if you know the rubber won't repent if you give him another chance, will you still give him a chance?!"

My God is a nice God

my God is a nice God too.If he's not nice why we should worship him.when he's not nice,so how can he be just?and when he's not just,he'll send us to hell anyway.so let's cheat on him as much as possible!

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

If humans are not all-knowing and so cannot assume to know the properties of God then nothing we are told about God is necessarily true, including that we cannot understand him. All the information we have about God comes from humans. While Moses and Jesus' disciples may well have had the privilege of an audience with the man himself (or his son if different), everything we know about those encounters is heresay (heresay resembles heresy, no?). If we cannot assume to know anything about God because we are not all-knowing, then that includes his very existence, so we cannot assume he exists. Therefore reject God and embrace nihilism.

 

[Jameson]

2."what do you mean when you say he's all knowing?"
I think all knowing means he knows everything>I mean he knows past,present and future.he knows what will happen in future!"suppose you know the future.so you should know what will happen to the rubber in the future.so if you know the rubber won't repent if you give him another chance, will you still give him a chance?!"

Everything I am saying is limited to my own personal knowledge, and I am not pretending to know everything, but that doesn't mean I cannot rationalize things the best way possible for me. To say that simply because I am not all knowing I cannot know anything is not a philosophy I am going to live by.

As for all knowing meaning God knows the future, I would debate this. I think it is a logical paradox to say that God could know the future but still allow of to have free will, and I just simply do not konw how people can say that. These logical paradoxes are usually explained and maintained through faith, which is fine, but puts the discussion at a dead end. I cannot disprove your faith, as faith is belief without proof.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

As for all knowing meaning God knows the future, I would debate this. I think it is a logical paradox to say that God could know the future but still allow of to have free will, and I just simply do not konw how people can say that.

It's no paradox if you define 'free will' in a sensible way - i.e. the ability to base a decision on experience rather than external pressures. God may know our experiences and know which path we will take without butting in and telling us what to do. Even external constraints do not necessarily constitute a lack of free will as prescribed by God. If God existed and granted us free will, the logical interpretation of this is free from him .

 

[Jameson]

You are implying that our experiences define our actions, or rather that if all of our experiences are known, that by some formula our next move may be determined. I just disagree with this.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Well i know in military stuff, when they r using spies, they do make a complete psychological profile..
They study him closely in order to rpedict what hsi enxt move would be if we put on him this pressure or that or a combintion of this or that...

And they can do it..

If u've a close friend, u know what u should do to avoid his anger, or to make him accept something...u know him very well that u can understand every move..and that is why u can sometimes predict what's going to happen next...

And now if we say God is supposed to lvoe us and he knows us very well, and he doesn't interefere in our decisions, yet we've probably some obvious solutions and ways to take, but he cna predict how we r goin to think it..

Why can't he, if some close study by pro psychiatrists can...

 

[Jameson]

Those studies are a way of guessing the most probable move that person would make, based on our limited knowledge of the mind. I just don't think really knowing a person would tell you all of that person's exact future actions.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

No, you can't predict their actions on their past experience alone. That is not what I meant. But past experience is the biggest contributing factor to a decision that needs to be made. If you touch an electrical socket with wet hands, the chances are that next time you have wet hands you'll avoid electrical sockets.

None of which matters to make my point. By 'free will', as granted by God, it is logical to assume it means that we do not simply perform those actions God wishes with no choice. This does not mean that God doesn't know the future. If he is all-knowing, then he knows EVERY contributing factor to any decision ever made, and so know what decision will be made, and so know the future.

God knew Eve would take the apple. I mean... he put a goddam talking snake in the garden of Eden, a snake he KNEW was up to no good. He punished Adam and Eve for a crime HE SET UP! Let's call this what it is: ENTRAPMENT! If it wasn't for the fact God doesn't actually exist, I'd be calling for his resignation right now.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

There's a stupid comment I've , but i can't help it... it annoys me every time people mention it was an apple..It wasn't an apple, it's not written what kind of fruit it was..

 

[Lisa!]

don't laugh but I think being able to predict the next move is somehow in contrast with
Heisenberg's principle!
and not important what kind of fruite it was.I think God wants to show human that he has the athourity.I mean they didn't obey God's order,so they're sent out of heaven but instead of it they got freewill!

 

[DaveC426913]

I see the reasoning in teaching someone a lesson, but we are talking about a much grander scale with much worse things than popping a balloon. When someone dies, he/she will not be able to learn a lesson, as that person is DEAD. If I shoot you because you stole something of mine, what lesson did you get out of that?

The question is: What does the human race learn as a whole?

OK, let's refine the analogy: you have two children. Every parent knows that you don't intervene in every little quibble (or sometimes even the bigger ones). They must learn to resolve things themselves.

 

[Smurf]

don't laugh but I think being able to predict the next move is somehow in contrast with Heisenberg's principle!

Regardless of one's belief in Heisenberg's principle as it's relation to humans. In order to discuss God as Omnipotent and Omniscient we must assume he is separate from the rules that govern us mere humans and the rest of the universe. Rules imply limitations, if he is limited by rules he cannot be omnipotent. Therefor in order to discuss god as omnipotent and omniscient we must assume beforehand he is not subject to things like the Heisenberg's principle.

But this is all an irrelevant addition to the obvious logic that:
If we are discussing Omnipotence at all, it's silly to say omnipotence is subject to rules. That's not omnipotence. Same goes for Omniscience, if we're talking about an absolute and we say an absolute is limited we're no longer talking about an absolute, so the discussion must change to something other than an absolute. That's not what we're discussing.

So there cannot be both an omniscient god, and an unknowable future. So if we're going to discuss an omniscient god, we must assume the future is not unknowable.

 

[Smurf]

The question is: What does the human race learn as a whole?

In other words, can you learn by observation as well as direct experience??

 

[Smurf]

I think this has a formal name, to which I do not know

God's Paradox? It seems similar to the Omnipotence paradox, which is must simpler. It's like this:

->God can do anything
->God cannot create something he cannot change
->God cannot create that thing
->God cannot be omnipotent because he cannot create that thing.

A common answer to this is that omnipotence includes the power to limit one's own omnipotence in the future. (which is also fallible to other logical reasoning concerning time, so the omnipotence paradox still stands)

So, perhapse the answer to why there is pain and suffering in the world is that God used to be omnipotent, but then decided to bugger off and let us kill ourselves...

and the answer to that is "but then he couldn't be omnibenevolent."

Rinse, and repeat.

 

[Lisa!]

Regardless of one's belief in Heisenberg's principle as it's relation to humans. In order to discuss God as Omnipotent and Omniscient we must assume he is separate from the rules that govern us mere humans and the rest of the universe. Rules imply limitations, if he is limited by rules he cannot be omnipotent. Therefor in order to discuss god as omnipotent and omniscient we must assume beforehand he is not subject to things like the Heisenberg's principle.

But this is all an irrelevant addition to the obvious logic that:
If we are discussing Omnipotence at all, it's silly to say omnipotence is subject to rules. That's not omnipotence. Same goes for Omniscience, if we're talking about an absolute and we say an absolute is limited we're no longer talking about an absolute, so the discussion must change to something other than an absolute. That's not what we're discussing.

So there cannot be both an omniscient god, and an unknowable future. So if we're going to discuss an omniscient god, we must assume the future is not unknowable.

For sure when I said that I wasn't talking about God.I meant humans aren't able to predict the next move.Maybe God creates the whole world under some soecial rules but for sure he doesn't have to exist or
act under these rules.and that's why people say he can do whatever he wants like miraclse.When we say God is the creator of whole world,he must exist before everything and every rule,so that's funny if we accept him to exist under his self-made rules.maybe he put these rules because he wants us to be able to know the world better and then for sure we can know him too.so we're able to findout the purpose of our existence

 

[mtngoblin2000]

Every person in this world has the choice of doing good or causing harm, that is the benefit of God giving us freewill. If God intervened every time someone chose to do evil in this world life would be pointless. It is written that God created us in his own image, it does not say that we were created to have his exact personality. As far as pain and suffering in the world it is simply part of our existence. Without evil there cannot be good, without hate there cannot be love.
I have also heard the theory that there are two Gods in the bible, one vengeful God in the old testament who was vanquished by a loving God in the new testament.

 

[Smurf]

Without evil there cannot be good, without hate there cannot be love.

hmmm, i don't think the vatican will like that one. Don't a lot of religions affirm that good is not dependant on evil, that has some pretty bad implications for an organized church with a history of burning people and starting huge wars.

 

[Jameson]

Every person in this world has the choice of doing good or causing harm, that is the benefit of God giving us freewill. If God intervened every time someone chose to do evil in this world life would be pointless. It is written that God created us in his own image, it does not say that we were created to have his exact personality. As far as pain and suffering in the world it is simply part of our existence. Without evil there cannot be good, without hate there cannot be love.
I have also heard the theory that there are two Gods in the bible, one vengeful God in the old testament who was vanquished by a loving God in the new testament.

The freewill argument I have heard and considered before. But the fact of the matter is, we are not completely free. We are free within the bounds of reality. For instance, I could not simply stand up and decide to fly. It's just not possible. God defined reality and gave us the ability to cause harm to each other. God allowed us to do evil things when He created us, we didn't invent evil.

This is all assuming God exists. I'm an atheist who is speaking with the assumed fact that the defined God in my OP is the one we are talking about.

 

[NoGeniusJustSensible]

God is a belief... maybe more maybe less... but god is a belief so that we can have something to hold onto and move on... he is all that cos we chose for him to be that...

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

If i had the belief that God is only a belief, an illusion so that i'd have soemthing to hol onto than i don't really believe in God, once i realize that, i'd say if it's only my illusion than i can create soemthing better, let's wipe this thought out..

It's not realistic to think this way...If u say there's god than there's God, but if it's just ur illusions than it's a useless thought..

It's a yes or no, either there's God or there's none...

 

[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)