Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

[Revoltingest]

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

Special pleading doesn't apply, since I don't exclude unfavorable info.
I'm just looking at possibilities which cannot be excluded.

Suffering isn't required to appreciate bliss....

This premise is a stretch. Even in the physical world, the elimination of suffering could have
ill effect, but further purpose could be served in the supernatural (eg, Heaven, Hell, etc).

.....why would a Hell exist at all, why would we need to be "tested?"

All good questions, but the asking of them sheds no light on the PoE.

.....if you'd like I can get back into each of them individually to explain why they're insufficient at answering the PoE.

Oh, no need...since the PoE looks unanswerable, & perhaps not even a problem.

 

[Meow Mix]

Special pleading doesn't apply, since I don't exclude unfavorable info.
I'm just looking at possibilities which cannot be excluded.

You asserted something against the norm (that suffering is somehow good) without justifying it and furthermore by saying HOW this would be the case is inexplicable. That's special pleading by the book:

Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

This premise is a stretch. Even in the physical world, the elimination of suffering could have
ill effect, but further purpose could be served in the supernatural (eg, Heaven, Hell, etc).

We eliminated smallpox without logically related ill effect, that seems clear evidence contrary to such a notion. It's also logically conceivable to have a world without suffering without contradiction or foreseeable ill effect (which would in fact be a contradiction, come to think of it). The second half is more special pleading.

All good questions, but the asking of them sheds no light on the PoE.

Nor do the questions these were in response to, which was the point.

Oh, no need...since the PoE looks unanswerable, & perhaps not even a problem.

It is entirely answerable: theists must drop either omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, creator-being, or existence from the attributes of God -- or resolve the PoE somehow. In lack of a method to do the latter they MUST do the former or suffer irrationality via believing in a contradiction.

 

[Revoltingest]

You asserted something against the norm (that suffering is somehow good) without justifying it and furthermore by saying HOW this would be the case is inexplicable. That's special pleading by the book:

We must use different books. Tis true that I don't justify the possibility, but I still see it as a possibility.

We eliminated smallpox without logically related ill effect, that seems clear evidence contrary to such a notion. It's also logically conceivable to have a world without suffering without contradiction or foreseeable ill effect (which would in fact be a contradiction, come to think of it). The second half is more special pleading.

The elimination of smallpox is a small mercy compared to the remaining woes, which would pick up the slack. So ill effects from losing this disease would be negligible at most.

It is entirely answerable: theists must drop either omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, creator-being, or existence from the attributes of God -- or resolve the PoE somehow. In lack of a method to do the latter they MUST do the former or suffer irrationality via believing in a contradiction.

I'd agree that some forms of theism could have logical difficulty with the PoE. But I don't know enuf about any to get into specifics, so I'm looking only at the general case.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

But perfection is subjective and situational. What's perfect in one scenario isn't perfect in the next...
the concept seems absurd. "Perfection" must be made cognitive to me before I'll ever agree to this.

I realize that I should have prefaced this particular conversation with an admission that I do not believe, you or I, nor anyone would be or should be able to convince another of God through an argument. I only say this so it is clear what my intentions are here, which are certainly not to convince you or anyone else God is God.
I would submit that if we make God a goal to achieve or understand, in an empirical sense, so as to end the matter in our mind all together, either for or against the notion, the road for some will be much longer than for others.

Now onto perfection. As you suggest perfection above is subjective and situational, I will point out that in that context perfection means nothing at all. Much like in times past, if we talked about a Gentleman, no matter how nice or rude the person was, as long as they had a coat of arms, and dressed the part, they were for all intents and purposes a Gentleman. If you announced to anyone a Gentleman entered the room everyone would know what that meant. Only until later when people ascribed a gentleman ought to be more than just someone who bore a coat of arms, did the term become useless and subjective.

It is in this sense I would say the same about perfection. It is not enough, and actually may be fraudulent to base an argument about a Gentleman, if the participants refused to acknowledge the difference in the now common subjective useless term gentleman, and the original term Gentleman. Do you see the difference?

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.

I started this thread in an attempt to explain why God can not make something identical to himself. That God for all intents and purposes to this thread is the creator of all we know. As a result everything that he creates would be less than equal to himself. It is at this juncture we are able to define perfection.

To go into depth about suffering at this juncture skips over a vast amount of information that anyone seriously considering the matter at hand should want to be privy too.

Imagine walking in a forest where many trees are tall, and you come upon a tree you particularly like, no in fact you declare it to be perfect. You set out to declare to the world you found the perfect tree, but as we know it is only to you or maybe a few that would agree it was perfect. Is perfect the right word here? Of course not, it is a reduction of many words, like pretty, tallest, shadiest, most colorful, etc... This brings us back to calling anyone we like a gentleman, when in fact, we are defining perfection for our own liking.
Let's assume this tree was perfect though, whatever that might mean, it would still be the most perfect tree, not the most perfect flower, or cow, or sunrise, etc... Again reducing the term perfection to a simple expression of our whims...

If however, God created all of theses things, and trees could be as glorious as possible, and sunrises as well, we'd be better off stating just that, that they are glorious and bring us particular sensations. You see our ignorant use of the word perfection only makes it more difficult to explain to coming generation what perfection is, much like many would never know what a real Gentleman is, because we have corrupted the term to be nothing more than a subjective explanation for a person.

Perfection if it is a word and if it means something, must be reserved for something else. But what? Is it not an honest inquiry to approach it in such a manner? Please tell me, if I am improper to approach it this way. I am merely trying to be as honest and open about the subject as I know how.

 

[Meow Mix]

We must use different books. Tis true that I don't justify the possibility, but I still see it as a possibility.

Well, it may or may not be a possibility. If the way "how" it could happen is inexplicable then we don't know whether it's even logical or not. If it involves something illogical, then it's not possible. For instance, "God does X, which seemingly contradicts, inexplicably such that it doesn't contradict." This doesn't always work: "God makes a square-circle inexplicably." This isn't possible at all. It's less cut and dry with whether suffering has some kind of benevolent purpose, but without justification for saying it's possible it's just special pleading and irrational to either believe or to suggest with force of argument. If it's just suggested that it "might be possible" then that's agreed, but it has no force to object to the PoE.

The elimination of smallpox is a small mercy compared to the remaining woes, which would pick up the slack. So ill effects from losing this disease would be negligible at most.

There's no logical correlation between stopping suffering and more suffering arising, though. So your argument requires justification if it's to have any force.

I'd agree that some forms of theism could have logical difficulty with the PoE. But I don't know enuf about any to get into specifics, so I'm looking only at the general case.

That can be an issue though since PoE only attacks specific forms of theism. It only specifically attacks conceptions of God as omnipotent, omniscient, existent, the creator, and benevolent at the same time that suffering exists.

 

[Meow Mix]

Now onto perfection. As you suggest perfection above is subjective and situational, I will point out that in that context perfection means nothing at all. Much like in times past, if we talked about a Gentleman, no matter how nice or rude the person was, as long as they had a coat of arms, and dressed the part, they were for all intents and purposes a Gentleman. If you announced to anyone a Gentleman entered the room everyone would know what that meant. Only until later when people ascribed a gentleman ought to be more than just someone who bore a coat of arms, did the term become useless and subjective.

It is in this sense I would say the same about perfection. It is not enough, and actually may be fraudulent to base an argument about a Gentleman, if the participants refused to acknowledge the difference in the now common subjective useless term gentleman, and the original term Gentleman. Do you see the difference?

Sure, one is a definition and the other is a comparison. Gentleman (as a man with a coat of arms) is a definition. Gentleman (as a man with likeable qualities compared to other men) is a comparison.

Perfection is a comparative word. It takes a standard (a perfect thing) and compares the qualities of something else to it. "The perfect meterstick" is a stick that is exactly a meter long. A near-perfect meterstick is a stick that's very close to a meter long.

In order for us to use the word "perfection" we must be using specific attributes, where it's understood at exactly what value "perfection" lies. That's why I was saying your use of the term is subjective: if there is a scale of perfection with God at the top and everything else in between, what attributes are they striving for in order to be perfect?

You can't do it all at once either. Consider omniscience and omnipotence at the same time. A bulldozer has more power than a library book, but a library book has more knowledge than a bulldozer. Which is "more perfect?" It's an impossible question.

Other times it is possible if we're talking about a particular class of entities: "The perfect number of students for my classroom is an even number so I can split them up into groups and a number over 10." In this case, 9 is more perfect than 7 and obviously so, even though neither are themselves perfect for the perfection in question. This is why I'm saying that in order for you to use this argument involving perfection you must be much, much more specific.

Let's assume this tree was perfect though, whatever that might mean, it would still be the most perfect tree, not the most perfect flower, or cow, or sunrise, etc... Again reducing the term perfection to a simple expression of our whims...

But we can't "assume" anything noncognitive; and it isn't cognitive to assert that the tree is "perfect" in an ineffable manner. That's why I said you'll need to narrow this down before I'll ever agree to this argument -- becuase there's no argument to be cognized at this point.

Robert Maydole, an interesting theodician, for instance attempted to define perfection thusly:

1) A property is a perfection iff its negation is not a perfection.
2) Perfection entails only perfections

This doesn't give us an idea on what perfection is specifically but it gives us something of a litmus test to see if we have a perfect property in a given context.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

How about the oldest we know of, Aristotle's
1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts;
2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better;
3. which has attained its purpose.

I actually think these work quite well, though one may as what "good" is, which is fine so long as they are ready for the answer, or logic behind the answer.
I have to go for now, but will respond more later...

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, it may or may not be a possibility.

Such is the nature of all possibilities.

If the way "how" it could happen is inexplicable then we don't know whether it's even logical or not.

Agreed.

If it involves something illogical, then it's not possible.

Agreed.

If it's just suggested that it "might be possible" then that's agreed, but it has no force to object to the PoE.

I can agree with that too. but the whole PoE argument also contains premises with similar lack of force.

There's no logical correlation between stopping suffering and more suffering arising, though. So your argument requires justification if it's to have any force.

Since challenges of life make us stronger, & keep us from becoming slothful, I find it conceivable that suffering could have some value. Without it, we could become more like cattle.

That can be an issue though since PoE only attacks specific forms of theism. It only specifically attacks conceptions of God as omnipotent, omniscient, existent, the creator, and benevolent at the same time that suffering exists.

It also seems to presume that the god's motives & desires are like ours. Where that isn't known to be the case, I see no PoE.

 

[Meow Mix]

How about the oldest we know of, Aristotle's
1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts;
2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better;
3. which has attained its purpose.

I actually think these work quite well, though one may as what "good" is, which is fine so long as they are ready for the answer, or logic behind the answer.
I have to go for now, but will respond more later...

Maydole expanded on what "good" is only slightly: That perfection is that which is better to have than not have.

'Course, we've just switched "good" for "better." Not much of an improvement.

 

[Meow Mix]

I can agree with that too. but the whole PoE argument also contains premises with similar lack of force.

Such as what? The force of the PoE's premises comes from the target's pre-existing acceptance of them.

Since challenges of life make us stronger, & keep us from becoming slothful, I find it conceivable that suffering could have some value. Without it, we could become more like cattle.

Can you specify this? Why wouldn't we have challenges in a world without suffering or with greatly diminished suffering? For instance, I'd imagine that someone in Heaven could play Grand Theft Auto or other video games just fine without ever experiencing suffering themselves -- but while experiencing challenge. I'd imagine there's chess in heaven, too. Etc.

Suffering isn't required for growth. Suffering does spur growth, but it's all growth that's only to respond to suffering: such growth is unnecessary in the lack of suffering. I grow by touching a hot coil by learning not to do that again, but that "groth" is meaningless once suffering ceases to exist.

It also seems to presume that the god's motives & desires are like ours. Where that isn't known to be the case, I see no PoE.

It's special pleading to rely on that though, unless justification is forthcoming as to how God could still be benevolent while creating the capacity for suffering. Since no justification IS forthcoming, the PoE has full force.

 

[Revoltingest]

Such as what? The force of the PoE's premises comes from the target's pre-existing acceptance of them.

Premises which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I find unsupported:
"Suffering isn't required for growth."
"Suffering does spur growth, but it's all growth that's only to respond to suffering: such growth is unnecessary in the lack of suffering."

Can you specify this?

Clearly, our own & the suffering of others affects us. Perhaps these effects serve some godly purpose, over & above things like motivating us to alleviate suffering, pursue justice, etc.

Why wouldn't we have challenges in a world without suffering or with greatly diminished suffering? For instance, I'd imagine that someone in Heaven could play Grand Theft Auto or other video games just fine without ever experiencing suffering themselves -- but while experiencing challenge. I'd imagine there's chess in heaven, too. Etc.

A game with no compelling consequences would not be the same as real life experiences.

.....but that "groth" is meaningless once suffering ceases to exist.

But the faithful would say that we don't cease to exist. Perhaps the benefits of suffering accrue in the next life.

It's special pleading to rely on that though, unless justification is forthcoming as to how God could still be benevolent while creating the capacity for suffering. Since no justification IS forthcoming, the PoE has full force.

I've re-read the definitions of "special pleading", just to be sure I'm responding properly, but I just don't see how it's applicable. Your unsupported premises still don't defeat the possibilities I've noted, so the PoE doesn't appear to be a problem with all powerful supreme beings in general.

I should note here, that I'm not siding with evil....despite what some posters will tell you.

 

[tomato1236]

IIIII can do anythinnnnng.
Take a look. It's in a book.
a-Reading Rainbowwwww.

 

[Willamena]

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, some philosophers have taken conclusions from the problem of evil steps further, but then of course it's no longer the problem of evil.

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.

Right. The (actual) problem of evil is a brilliant logical argument that demonstrates adequately that the attribute of benevolence assumed for "God"/creation is incorrect. Theodicy and its arguments for why evil may be necessary is another topic entirely.

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

Um, no. (Sorry)

Look at it this way: either "God" is a) the creator and not the creation, in which case he cannot "have" or "be" anything he's created, or b) the creator and the creation, in which case he has/is free will, determinism, predestination, fate, etc. All of them. It's an all-or-nothing choice.

 

[tomato1236]

I understand the PoE better than you do. I understand that it can't be solved or wished away or reasoned away. So go ahead and throw a tantrum. Cry and stamp your feet.

What does PoE stand for? I'm a newb on the internet. When I was your age, people had to walk thirty miles in snow and cobras and volcanic ash to find someone to debate religion with. And debating religion was uphill both ways.

 

[Willamena]

It is entirely answerable: theists must drop either omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, creator-being, or existence from the attributes of God...

One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong

 

[tomato1236]

One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong

Can you guess which thing is not like the others by the time we finish our song?

No?

 

[Willamena]

What does PoE stand for? I'm a newb on the internet. When I was your age, people had to walk thirty miles in snow and cobras and volcanic ash to find someone to debate religion with. And debating religion was uphill both ways.

"PoE" is shorthand for the Problem of Evil, which essentially is this:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Of course, it assumes a particular image of "God" and reality that is dualistic.

 

[tomato1236]

"PoE" is shorthand for the Problem of Evil, which essentially is this:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Of course, it assumes a particular image of "God" and reality that is dualistic.

Oh, thanks for explaining that. I never would have figured that out from three letters.

In #3 it says that kind of God would want to prevent all evils, with which I can agree. In #6 it says He would necessarily prevent all evils because he is able to, and wants to. Is that necessarily true? I can think of lots of things I want to do , and am able to do, which aren't right, or a good idea. Also, I'm bound by commitments. Can God be bound by commitments?

 

[no-body]

"PoE" is shorthand for the Problem of Evil, which essentially is this:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Of course, it assumes a particular image of "God" and reality that is dualistic.

I see this as only a problem for a God who is earthbound and claims to want our salvation and love us; the Abrahamic God. A complex pantheistic God is above this sort of thing.

 

[PolyHedral]

Oh, thanks for explaining that. I never would have figured that out from three letters.

In #3 it says that kind of God would want to prevent all evils, with which I can agree. In #6 it says He would necessarily prevent all evils because he is able to, and wants to. Is that necessarily true? I can think of lots of things I want to do , and am able to do, which aren't right, or a good idea.

But if they are not a good idea, why do you want to do them?