Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

[Willamena]

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.

That everything is the way it is is not a result of determinism, it's one of the premises of determinism. Determinism and free will have nothing to do with the actual Problem of Evil (though there may be some secular variant).

The Problem of Evil assumes:
a) that a "God" that created everything is good
b) that suffering exists
c) that suffering is bad

 

[CarlinKnew]

That everything is the way it is is not a result of determinism, it's one of the premises of determinism.

No, the result of determinism is that there is only one possible state of the universe given that all events are the subject to causality.

Determinism and free will have nothing to do with the actual Problem of Evil (though there may be some secular variant).


The Problem of Evil assumes:
a) that a "God" that created everything is good
b) that suffering exists
c) that suffering is bad

Right, and if this god doesn't have freewill it can't be good or bad because it's not responsible for what it does. If god could not have chosen to create the universe differently or to not create the universe at all, then the PoE does not apply.

 

[Meow Mix]

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?

But perfection is subjective and situational. What's perfect in one scenario isn't perfect in the next: there isn't some universal scale of perfection by which all things are judged, otherwise we'd have something like a bar graph with God at the top and we might have... say... an XBOX 360 controller being "more perfect" than a cell phone. I'm just picking examples from my computer table, but the concept seems absurd. "Perfection" must be made cognitive to me before I'll ever agree to this.

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.

It seems fruitful to recognize that most suffering is contingent and therefore could have not-existed, but I'm interested in what you have to say.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

Yep, where's the problem there?

I don't get what point you're trying to make.

 

[Meow Mix]

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?

*double take*

*reads three times*

What?

Can you rephrase that?

 

[Willamena]

No, the result of determinism is that there is only one possible state of the universe given that all events are the subject to causality.

I see what you meant.

Right, and if this god doesn't have freewill it can't be good or bad because it's not responsible for what it does. If god could not have chosen to create the universe differently or to not create the universe at all, then the PoE does not apply.

That's as far removed from my understanding of practically each of those concepts as you could get.

 

[Meow Mix]

No, the result of determinism is that there is only one possible state of the universe given that all events are the subject to causality.

Right, and if this god doesn't have freewill it can't be good or bad because it's not responsible for what it does. If god could not have chosen to create the universe differently or to not create the universe at all, then the PoE does not apply.

Gotta say I'm with Carlin on this one, unless I'm misunderstanding you Willamena.

 

[Willamena]

I'm on board with free will's relationship to reponsibility, but: the act of creation doesn't have to be one of free will; "good" and "bad" are not dependent upon responsibility (or force); free will isn't dependent upon "good" or "bad"; choice isn't dependent upon free will; the universe isn't dependent upon choice; and lastly, in my view PoE has nothing to do with any of these.

 

[logician]

"Does omnipotent mean God can do anything? "

No, it means mankind creates god concepts where they hope their gods can do anything.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm on board with free will's relationship to reponsibility, but: the act of creation doesn't have to be one of free will; "good" and "bad" are not dependent upon responsibility (or force); free will isn't dependent upon "good" or "bad"; choice isn't dependent upon free will; the universe isn't dependent upon choice; and lastly, in my view PoE has nothing to do with any of these.

Do you suppose that a being without free will is culpable for its choices, and can be considered good or evil (or just victim to its circumstances neutrally)?

Can a being without free will who has no choice in an action be considered either "benevolent" or "malevolent" any more than, say, a tsunami that rose through physical consequences is "benevolent" or "malevolent?"

If you don't think "benevolent" can be applied to a deterministic being, then free will does indeed have a lot to do with the PoE.

 

[Willamena]

Do you suppose that a being without free will is culpable for its choices...

That is free will's relationship to responsibility: that the being with free will is culpable for its choices. IMO, there is no "being without free will" --free will and conscious being are codependent.

Do you suppose that a being without free will is culpable for its choices, and can be considered good or evil (or just victim to its circumstances neutrally)?

I can, indeed, consider anything to be good or evil, or neutral.

Can a being without free will who has no choice in an action be considered either "benevolent" or "malevolent" any more than, say, a tsunami that rose through physical consequences is "benevolent" or "malevolent?"

Objectively good, evil or neutral cannot apply, right.

If you don't think "benevolent" can be applied to a deterministic being, then free will does indeed have a lot to do with the PoE.

My problem is that I consider the Problem of Evil to be a problem of ...evil. Not a problem of free will, not a problem of God's existence, not a problem of how the world should be. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Meow Mix]

My problem is that I consider the Problem of Evil to be a problem of ...evil. Not a problem of free will, not a problem of God's existence, not a problem of how the world should be. But maybe that's just me.

Then I think you misunderstand the purpose of PoE.

PoE is there to show a logical contradiction in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator-God at the same time as the existence of evil.

Since "benevolence" is a characteristic of the God PoE addresses, then free will does indeed play a role in the PoE.

The argument hinges on the fact that God, being omnipotent/omniscient, could have chosen to create the world in a different way such that evil (suffering) couldn't arise; or could choose to intervene to stop suffering as it "attempts" to arise.

------------

Edit: Let's not also forget the most common theodicy offered in response: the FREE WILL defense.

 

[Revoltingest]

PoE is there to show a logical contradiction in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator-God at the same time as the existence of evil.

I don't see yet how logic is applicable to the PoE. We must assume some premises from a multitude of unverifiable
premises about what metaphysical & physical functions are performed by that which we call "evil". Evil in our lives
could be useful to a god, eg:
- Better appreciation for the wonderful afterlife.
- Part of the system to decide who goes to Heaven & who goes to Hell.
- It tests us, & keeps us frosty.
- Etc, etc, etc....
Sure, sure, most of us mortals really hate evil, but that doesn't mean a god couldn't find it useful for some purpose unknown to us.
Without a well documented dogma to adopt as absolute truth, the motives & conduct of a supreme being will be unavailable to us.
Hmmm...I suppose it's a way of exploring the premises themselves. I'm glad to not believe in anything which requires so much work.

 

[Midnight Pete]

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

Conscious life suffers. Accept it as a given and move on.

 

[Meow Mix]

Conscious life suffers. Accept it as a given and move on.

"Jews in Nazi Germany suffer. Accept it as a given and move on. There's no need to ask troublesome questions such as, 'Is it necessary for them to suffer? Could it be otherwise?' I mean, why bother with such trivialities?"

That's essentially what I got out of that.

You can't just brush the PoE under the carpet, especially if you believe the premises of the PoE.

 

[Midnight Pete]

The PoE is called a problem because there's nothing we can do about it. You have a lot of book-smarts, but not much wisdom.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't see yet how logic is applicable to the PoE. We must assume some premises from a multitude of unverifiable
premises about what metaphysical & physical functions are performed by that which we call "evil". Evil in our lives
could be useful to a god, eg:
- Better appreciation for the wonderful afterlife.
- Part of the system to decide who goes to Heaven & who goes to Hell.
- It tests us, & keeps us frosty.
- Etc, etc, etc....
Sure, sure, most of us mortals really hate evil, but that doesn't mean a god couldn't find it useful for some purpose unknown to us.
Without a well documented dogma to adopt as absolute truth, the motives & conduct of a supreme being will be unavailable to us.
Hmmm...I suppose it's a way of exploring the premises themselves. I'm glad to not believe in anything which requires so much work.

This is special pleading, though, and doesn't resolve the PoE.

Suffering isn't required to appreciate bliss, why would a Hell exist at all, why would we need to be "tested?" These are all theodicies that I've responded to at length throughout these discussion, but if you'd like I can get back into each of them individually to explain why they're insufficient at answering the PoE.

 

[Meow Mix]

The PoE is called a problem because there's nothing we can do about it. You have a lot of book-smarts, but not much wisdom.

No, you're not understanding the PoE.

It's a problem because there's a contradiction.

Think of it like "The Problem of the Square-Circle." The problem isn't that "there's nothing we can do about it." The problem is that the premises in the argument lead to a contradiction, which means that one of the premises of the argument must be wrong.

No matter how many times I explain this people still seem to think that the PoE is whining about evil existing. That is not -- not, not, not, NOT -- what the PoE is. I don't know how to say it any clearer.

The PoE shows that God can't be omnipotent, or can't be omniscient, or can't exist, or can't be the creator, or can't be benevolent. It shows that if you put the attributes of God: being omnipotent, being omniscient, being benevolent, being the creator, and existing together with the fact that suffering exists, a contradiction arises and therefore one of those attributes is false. This is exactly like if you took the attributes of "being square" and "being circle" and put them together at the same time and in the same respect you end up with a contradiction, and therefore one or more of the initially assumed attributes MUST be false.

It isn't calling for us to "do something" about evil. It's calling for believers in the attributes of God listed to understand that their position is untenable and that they must admit that one or more of the characteristics is false!

 

[Willamena]

Then I think you misunderstand the purpose of PoE.

PoE is there to show a logical contradiction in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator-God at the same time as the existence of evil.

I disagree entirely on that "purpose of PoE". Rather, I agree with Wikipedia, that:

the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism)

(emphasis mine)

Evil is the problem. Not the existence of a Creator.

Since "benevolence" is a characteristic of the God PoE addresses, then free will does indeed play a role in the PoE.

Only in that "benevolence," like everything we own, requires free will. Is that relevant to the argument, though? No.

The argument hinges on the fact that God, being omnipotent/omniscient, could have chosen to create the world in a different way such that evil (suffering) couldn't arise; or could choose to intervene to stop suffering as it "attempts" to arise.

Well, I disagree that that's properly the (actual) Problem of Evil. The way I know it, the argument hinges on the premise that the presence of evil in the world, something assumed, by all who concur, to be not benevolent, belies that God's creation (i.e. the world, the visible side of "God") is benevolent.

 

[Meow Mix]

I disagree entirely on that "purpose of PoE". Rather, I agree with Wikipedia, that:

You failed to quote the important sentence immediately after (emphasis mine):

Some philosophers have claimed that the existence of such a God and of evil are logically incompatible or unlikely. Attempts to resolve the question under these contexts have historically been one of the prime concerns of theodicy.

Yes, indeed, the PoE is a logical problem: that of the attributes listed in the part you quoted with evil existing at the same time. It's logically incompatible. Either the attributes assumed for God are incorrect or something about suffering is incorrect. Thus the theodicies, which attempt to show how suffering might be necessary or justified. It is, indeed, a logical problem. One that theists haven't solved since Epicurus.

Only in that "benevolence," like everything we own, requires free will. Is that relevant to the argument, though? No.

If God doesn't have free will then the PoE doesn't apply since God then couldn't be "benevolent." See?


EDIT: Just wanted to note that if you scroll down even a tiny bit on the Wikipedia page you'll see it listed as the "LOGICAL Problem of Evil" plain as day, too.