A New Argument from Evil

[idav]

Then he isn't omnipotent.
Case solved.

Only in potential. Omnipresence does lend to being able to but would also mean being subject to its own rules.

Not really, not if it's the only one.

Could the singularity have happened more optimally? Optimal for whom rather.

 

[Koldo]

Only in potential. Omnipresence does lend to being able to but would also mean being subject to its own rules.

?
So God isn't omnipotent in potential?

What do you even mean by this?

 

[idav]

?
So God isn't omnipotent in potential?

What do you even mean by this?

Even in a universe where anything is possible it wouldn't actually do every single thing.

 

[McBell]

Even in a universe where anything is possible it wouldn't actually do every single thing.

Even if it is infinite?

 

[idav]

Even if it is infinite?

It takes an infinite amount of time to do an infinite amount of things.

 

[Koldo]

Even in a universe where anything is possible it wouldn't actually do every single thing.

Okay, i see what you meant now.

But so what? You said God can't help us. This means God isn't omnipotent.

How is what you just said related to what i said?

 

[McBell]

It takes an infinite amount of time to do an infinite amount of things.

unfortunately, that does not answer my question.

Do you mean "no, if the universe is infinite then it would end up doing all possible things, eventually"?

 

[idav]

Okay, i see what you meant now.

But so what? You said God can't help us. This means God isn't omnipotent.

How is what you just said related to what i said?

Us helping ourselves is god helping us. Unfortunately gods can be evil too.

unfortunately, that does not answer my question.

Do you mean "no, if the universe is infinite then it would end up doing all possible things, eventually"?

I don't think eventually would ever be reached.

 

[idav]

Okay, i see what you meant now.

But so what? You said God can't help us. This means God isn't omnipotent.

How is what you just said related to what i said?

I need to clarify. One of my points is that there are natural constraints but it doesn't mean it can't be overcome. I could know a to z but if it were life for example, the only way could be billions of years of evolution given the rules. Suffering and death being a natural consequence of life and how it came to be. So it isn't to say something isn't possible but how difficult it will be and how long it will take.

 

[Koldo]

Us helping ourselves is god helping us.

So we are God? And we are omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent?

Unfortunately gods can be evil too.

They can't be evil if they are omnibenevolent.

 

[Koldo]

I need to clarify. One of my points is that there are natural constraints but it doesn't mean it can't be overcome. I could know a to z but if it were life for example, the only way could be billions of years of evolution given the rules. Suffering and death being a natural consequence of life and how it came to be. So it isn't to say something isn't possible but how difficult it will be and how long it will take.

There are no natural constraints to omnipotence ( other than logic ). Omnipotence is unlimited power. The power to do anything.

 

[idav]

So we are God? And we are omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent?

Only in potential, haha.

They can't be evil if they are omnibenevolent.

An omnipotent being can't be constrained to only good.

There are no natural constraints to omnipotence ( other than logic ). Omnipotence is unlimited power. The power to do anything.

Yes well the universe has natural constraints yet its power and potential infinite.

 

[Koldo]

Only in potential, haha.

???

An omnipotent being can't be constrained to only good.

So, an omnipotent AND omnibenevolent God doesn't exist. Case solved.

Yes well the universe has natural constraints yet its power and potential infinite.

Omnipotence doesn't have natural constraints, except for logic. So?

 

[George-ananda]

In a world where God's intervention is constant, you could still choose to do evil. The difference is that evil actions would never come to fruition. You may choose to shoot an arrow towards another person, that is your will, whether it is going to hit the target is another matter entirely.

In our current world, intervention already exists from multiple factors. If intervention destroys free will, then we have a limited free will in the first place.
If i were to shoot someone, and the gun didn't work for some reason, where is my free will?

Here’s the flaw in the logic. If every time anyone shoots a gun at another person the gun doesn’t work, people would no longer consider that even an option and it wouldn’t even cross their minds. Just like when I’m chased by a tiger, I don’t consider flying to the top of the nearest tree.

Next, here’s the flaw in your ‘we have limited free-will already flying example’. We can never fly and understand that and that’s logical. But a gun that works fine when I point it at a target at a shooting range, will not work when I point it at a person, is not an analogous situation and not a logical world with free-will.

(We wouldn't have to eat in the first place.)

Right, in your world we wouldn’t have to do anything ever for an eternity. Isn’t necessity the mother of invention. Aren’t challenges and resistance needed for growth. Or in your universe would we all be maximally grown and know everything there is to know (since we have an infinite amount of time).

Why would living forever while experiencing time as we do would be a torturous hell? You have said it before but you have yet to give a reason as to why this must be the case.

Imagine, everything there is to know is known (since you been at it for an infinity). Would you try to entertain yourself then with things you’ve already experienced an infinite number of times?

I’m saying growth, struggle, triumph over struggles, satisfaction with accomplishments, are all good things. (And there is no conceivable way they can exist in your universe.)

And the reality of temporary bad has to exist also to make the good possible.

I want you to realize that the problem of evil is typically presented as representative of the christian god.

Very correct. But you replied to my very first post by saying the ‘problem of evil’ is not solved by my eastern world-view.

 

[Koldo]

Here’s the flaw in the logic. If every time anyone shoots a gun at another person the gun doesn’t work, people would no longer consider that even an option and it wouldn’t even cross their minds. Just like when I’m chased by a tiger, I don’t consider flying to the top of the nearest tree.

So what? You already can't choose to rip off someone's left arm with telekinesis.
Does this make your free will limited?

Next, here’s the flaw in your ‘we have limited free-will already flying example’. We can never fly and understand that and that’s logical. But a gun that works fine when I point it at a target at a shooting range, will not work when I point it at a person, is not an analogous situation and not a logical world with free-will.

Whether it is analogous depends on whether you believe God intervenes in this world or not. Regardless, it would be the equivalent to a recurrent intervention. Akin to, in a much lesser degree, a person wearing a bulletproof vest jumping in front of your gun. God, like humans already do, would be using his will to intervene in the result of your choices. The difference is that God is omnipotent.

Right, in your world we wouldn’t have to do anything ever for an eternity. Isn’t necessity the mother of invention. Aren’t challenges and resistance needed for growth. Or in your universe would we all be maximally grown and know everything there is to know (since we have an infinite amount of time).

In the omnimax God's universe, we wouldn't need to suffer ( nor evil ) to grow.
Maybe we wouldn't even need to grow. Maybe as you said, we would be maximally grown and know everything there is to know.

Imagine, everything there is to know is known (since you been at it for an infinity). Would you try to entertain yourself then with things you’ve already experienced an infinite number of times?

I’m saying growth, struggle, triumph over struggles, satisfaction with accomplishments, are all good things. (And there is no conceivable way they can exist in your universe.)

And the reality of temporary bad has to exist also to make the good possible.

Feeling bored and unhappy are contingent "qualities" we possess at our current universe. At an omnimax God's universe, we could possibly always feel happy and never bored.

Very correct. But you replied to my very first post by saying the ‘problem of evil’ is not solved by my eastern world-view.

It is not. I explained why in the text that follows that quote.

 

[George-ananda]

Why, exactly? When you talk about compassion and the like, it seems that you're conceding that there are imperfections in the world that need fixing.

What you call ‘imperfections’ are parts of a design seen from a limited perspective.

As I mentioned earlier (although not in a reply to you), I reject the idea of perfection except for certain contrived situations (e.g. a perfect score in bowling). While I don't think that the Earth as it is now is "maximally good" by any formulation I've ever heard of, when it comes right down to it, I don't think that maximal goodness - i.e. perfection - exists at all. No matter how good things are, I think we can always make them better.

Some good points. What do people mean by a ‘perfect universe’? What’s a perfect painting, perfect novel, perfect song??

On a side note, though, I noticed something strange about your terminology the way you distinguished between "natural law" and "interference". If we're assuming an overall sovereign creator-god, then both are just "what God does."

What I meant by interference was in reference to Koldo’s statement where we would be thwarted from committing evil by God. Our gun works fine when we point it at a target at a shooting range but it never works when we point it at a good person. So I used a new term ‘interference’ for something that doesn’t exist in our universe, that’s all.

So your take on things needs reincarnation to be true?

Yes, if you want to look at the three most common afterlife beliefs; 1) permanent heaven/hell; 2) reincarnation; 3) nothing.

 

[idav]

???



So, an omnipotent AND omnibenevolent God doesn't exist. Case solved.



Omnipotence doesn't have natural constraints, except for logic. So?

The universe has natural constraints but even so omniscience would always mean knowing how to overcome things like gravity but supernatural need not be involved for logic to still be sound.

 

[Koldo]

The universe has natural constraints but even so omniscience would always mean knowing how to overcome things like gravity but supernatural need not be involved for logic to still be sound.

So?

 

[idav]

So?

I try to not take omnipotence to ridiculous levels. At some point infinite power is powerful enough and and being able to overcome restrictions is also good enough.

 

[Willamena]

I try to not take omnipotence to ridiculous levels.

And yet, if you allow the possible to be actual, you do.