Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

[Meow Mix]

God can't create conscious souls as we have today, and there not be suffering.

IF the above statement can be shown true, how does your opinion change?
Please allow me certain latitude for now, as we are just have a hypothetical discussion at this juncture.

Bare in mind the following:
1)Presume the act of creating consciousness carries with it an intrinsic nature that when it is first created it must suffer.
2)If it is intrinsic that this must happen, it can be understood this is simply a limitation on God, and takes away none of his omnipotence.

This is essentially Alvin Plantinga's argument from transworld depravity: that there is no logical problem of evil because in order for God to create sentient moral beings suffering must occur; or rather it's possible that all possible worlds have transworld depraved people (and therefore it's necessary for suffering to exist ontologically if conscious beings exist).

If you're not familiar with Plantinga's transworld depravity I'd suggest checking it out as it's right up the alley that you're heading down here.

Before I can answer I need to know what you mean by souls "as we have today." Depending on how you're defining this, you may just be defining moral choice (and therefore suffering) into the argument which attempts to justify the existence of suffering, which is viciously circular if so. (Incidentally, this is also Plantinga's downfall with TD: it assumes moral choice and therefore suffering in order to justify suffering, and is thus viciously circular).

So, why should we presume that conscious life must suffer?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So, why should we presume that conscious life must suffer?

I am unaware of the person you speak. I will give it a look.

My reasoning for suggesting we look at the topic at hand (creating consciousness intrinsically means suffering will occur) spawns from what I can tell, something entirely different then the person you quote above.

Onto two questions you ask. First, the one directly above. It isn't that we must presume conscious life must suffer, it is that we are brave enough to accept that life DOES suffer, and address God from that starting point. If we refuse to do that, nothing will ever make sense, as far as I can tell. We work with what we have, the know factors.

You also asked me how I define souls "as we have today". To say it better, I am saying God can not create humans, and they be like we are today or as far back as we know of, without there being suffering.
Which conversely, if he could have he would have. Which is what I plan to show as we continue this discussion.

 

[Meow Mix]

Onto two questions you ask. First, the one directly above. It isn't that we must presume conscious life must suffer, it is that we are brave enough to accept that life DOES suffer, and address God from that starting point. If we refuse to do that, nothing will ever make sense, as far as I can tell. We work with what we have, the know factors.

But then you're assuming that suffering must exist to try to prove that it must exist. Do you see the problem there? This is the same mistake Plantinga makes even if you're coming from a different angle. Maybe it will help you see the circularity if I show you Plantinga's circularity.

Plantinga's argument is designed to show that God couldn't avoid creating suffering when creating sentient life.

One of his assumptions, though, is that God wanted to create life capable of moral culpability (i.e., able to make wrong moral choices). But this is assuming the very thing he's trying to prove. By assuming that God had to create humans with moral culpability, he's indirectly assuming that the capacity for suffering is already actualized.

Why am I able to cut someone's throat, Plantinga?

Because God created me with the ability to cut someone's throat.

But why did God create that ability into the universe, since free will operates fine without it (just like I don't have the ability to walk on the ceiling and still have free will)? Why can't I swing the knife with all my fervor but have it turn into silly putty if it hits someone's throat?

Because God created me with the ability to cut someone's throat.

But why?! It doesn't answer the problem of evil. It assumes suffering exists in order to explain why suffering must exist. It's viciously circular and accomplishes nothing.

You also asked me how I define souls "as we have today". To say it better, I am saying God can not create humans, and they be like we are today or as far back as we know of, without there being suffering.
Which conversely, if he could have he would have. Which is what I plan to show as we continue this discussion.

But why can't he have created us without the capacity for suffering in the world?

Can you make that argument without first assuming, as you have been, that suffering is necessary in the world in order to (circularly) "prove" that very same thing?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

It assumes suffering exists in order to explain why suffering must exist. It's viciously circular and accomplishes nothing.

I do not disagree with this, and I don't believe this is what I have asserted.

But why can't he have created us without the capacity for suffering in the world?

All I am trying to impress upon you at this time, is during this creation process, effects must happen. Just like you can not squeeze two atoms into the same space and have neutrality. It would appear that when the singular (God) becomes or rather creates something outside of itself, imperfection must exist, in the sense it will never be as perfect as the creator. So if he creates an apple, yes the apple can be a perfect apple, but we must then ask, is the perfectness of the apple the same perfectness as God? Is there a grade of "better", and indeed there has to be. CS Lewis does an excellent job at explaining this, to which I am apparently not.

What you are having a problem with, and asking me to explain, is how we get from an apple not being the same perfectness as God, and creating humans that must suffer. To which it is a most valid inquiry. Before we continue, we need to both be clear that absolute perfection must reside with God (assuming God exists for this discussion) and that all other creations can be perfect in a sense, but not when compared to God. Which again, denotes a grading of perfection. Do you understand?

Can you make that argument without first assuming, as you have been, that suffering is necessary in the world in order to (circularly) "prove" that very same thing?

I have not and do not intend for this to be the basis for my argument, so if it is OK, let's not assume so.
I merely pointed out earlier that suffering exists, so it would be more helpful to examine the world as it is, rather than how it is not. There is a difference, between doing that, and using that as an explanation of why suffering is here.

 

[Willamena]

But why?! It doesn't answer the problem of evil. It assumes suffering exists in order to explain why suffering must exist. It's viciously circular and accomplishes nothing.


But why can't he have created us without the capacity for suffering in the world?

Can you make that argument without first assuming, as you have been, that suffering is necessary in the world in order to (circularly) "prove" that very same thing?

The actual Problem of Evil, and its counter-arguments, assume suffering exists (because it does), just as they assume god exists, to demonstrate that "benevolence" is not characteristic of god. Explaining suffering is not part of the package.

Edit: i.e. the existence of "suffering" is essential to the argument.

 

[Willamena]

I've yet to hear anyone support the argument that "something that exists does not exist necessarily."

 

[CarlinKnew]

I've yet to hear anyone support the argument that "something that exists does not exist necessarily."

That would mean that god was forced to create everything exactly as it is. So much for god's freewill. Not a very helpful objection to the PoE.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

That would mean that god was forced to create everything exactly as it is. So much for god's freewill. Not a very helpful objection to the PoE.

It is fallacy to think God can do anything. No one I am aware of asserts such a thing.

 

[CarlinKnew]

It is fallacy to think God can do anything.

So god can't do anything? Was he ever able to do anything?

No one I am aware of asserts such a thing.

Sorry but this is either a flat out lie or you're being deliberately misleading.

 

[Willamena]

That would mean that god was forced to create everything exactly as it is. So much for god's freewill. Not a very helpful objection to the PoE.

Why? Because you attribute "God" with "free will" and imagine that the opposite of "free will" is "force"? Well, that's one perspective.

It's not an objection to the actual Problem of Evil at all.

 

[Willamena]

It is fallacy to think God can do anything. No one I am aware of asserts such a thing.

Well, you know of at least one now: Carlin, there!

 

[CarlinKnew]

Why? Because you attribute "God" with "free will" and imagine that the opposite of "free will" is "force"? Well, that's one perspective.

It's not an objection to the actual Problem of Evil at all.

Well the PoE is an argument against the stance that god chose to create the universe (the way it is, and that he is benevolent, etc). If your stance is that god didn't have the option to not create the universe, then the PoE does not apply to your stance.

 

[Willamena]

Well the PoE is an argument against the stance that god chose to create the universe.

No, it's not. It simply supports a more rational image of "God" than that attributed with aesthetic characteristics.

If your stance is that god didn't have the option to not create the universe, then the PoE does not apply to your stance.

It's not (my stance).

 

[CarlinKnew]

No, it's not. It simply supports a more rational image of "God" than that attributed with aesthetic characteristics.


It's not (my stance).

Hold on. You said:
"I've yet to hear anyone support the argument that "something that exists does not exist necessarily."

The implication being that perhaps everything that exists, exists necessarily. If that is the case then the universe as it is, is the only possible way it could ever be. That means god could not have created it another way (or even chosen to not create anything at all). If god could not have created it another way then the PoE does not apply.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So god can't do anything? Was he ever able to do anything?

Sorry but this is either a flat out lie or you're being deliberately misleading.

You misudersood me, sorry I was not clearer.
I meant to say, some people imagine a God should be able to do anything even that which is impossible.
I was saying that God can't do anything in the sense, he can do things but only things that are possible.
Example: God could never create an exact of himself. Hence God does have limitations.

 

[CarlinKnew]

You misudersood me, sorry I was not clearer.
I meant to say, some people imagine a God should be able to do anything even that which is impossible.
I was saying that God can't do anything in the sense, he can do things but only things that are possible.
Example: God could never create an exact of himself. Hence God does have limitations.

Oh. Well I didn't claim otherwise, so I don't see how your response was relevant?

 

[Willamena]

Hold on. You said:
"I've yet to hear anyone support the argument that "something that exists does not exist necessarily."

The implication being that perhaps everything that exists, exists necessarily. If that is the case then the universe as it is, is the only possible way it could ever be. That means god could not have created it another way (or even chosen to not create anything at all). If god could not have created it another way then the PoE does not apply.

If you want to assume that implication, fine, but it doesn't detract one bit from what I'd said. Reading things into it isn't helpful.

"God created" is the image of the universe, just as "God uncreated" is the image of a creator. "God" is what you see around you, every bit as much as it isn't; but as far as "it is", it is what it is.

Do possibilities enter into existence?

 

[CarlinKnew]

If you want to assume that implication, fine, but it doesn't detract one bit from what I'd said. Reading things into it isn't helpful.

Well that implication isn't far off from what you said.

"God created" is the image of the universe, just as "God uncreated" is the image of a creator. "God" is what you see around you, every bit as much as it isn't;...

:areyoucra

...but as far as "it is", it is what it is.

Sure, it is what it is.

Do possibilities enter into existence?

Not in my worldview, but they are necessary for both the PoE and the stance that the PoE applies to.

 

[Willamena]

Not in my worldview, but they are necessary for both the PoE and the stance that the PoE applies to.

Okie dokie.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Okie dokie.

Well let me clarify, in determinism there is ultimately one possibility, and that is for everything to be the way it is. But the PoE and the argument it objects to assume that philosophical freewill exists.