Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

[Willamena]

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?

Well, those are certainly interesting discussion points.

Perhaps for another thread, though.

 

[tomato1236]

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

I just do! My nature? I don't know.

 

[tomato1236]

Well, those are certainly interesting discussion points.

Perhaps for another thread, though.

Ok. Ok.

 

[Beaudreaux]

This is actually a pretty mainstream theological position. There's nothing wrong with it, it doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent or omniscient. It doesn't "diminish" God in any way.

It is a common position, but it does suggest that God is subject to rules. Doesn't that mean there is something higher than God?

 

[Midnight Pete]

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 = Problem of Evil

Meow Mix is convinced that the existence of evil and suffering makes God impossible. But let's not try to win an argument with a woman.

 

[Beaudreaux]

If I may use an analogy, and I hope you really think about this; It appears to me, you are quite good at creating a race track. Placing carefully the obstacles, and eventually the finish line. In this race you create it is par for the course that you stand at the end of the race, just beyond the finish line, looking at others attempting your course and critiquing them.
I'll just point out that, while it may be a fair and just course you have designed, it seems more so that it is not, and might be simply a comforting position for you to address the subject of God.

What a load of B.S.! People who present positions well (As MeowMix does) are often approached in this manner. It couldn't possibly be that the position set forth is compelling or correct, so it must be that the person setting out the position has "special" powers of persuasion.

If you find something compelling on this forum, rather than speculate that others are unnaturally good at creating magical arguments, how about considering that the position may be correct?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

What a load of B.S.! People who present positions well (As MeowMix does) are often approached in this manner. It couldn't possibly be that the position set forth is compelling or correct, so it must be that the person setting out the position has "special" powers of persuasion.

If you find something compelling on this forum, rather than speculate that others are unnaturally good at creating magical arguments, how about considering that the position may be correct?

Of course I consider it, as I do consider a great many things.
I am merely saying it is possible God could not prevent suffering and create the world and the creatures in it without suffering.

She has painted one box, and I am pointing out that it is a solid box, but a box that can only conclude one thing. That one thing doesn't have to be true. Understand the difference? I already admitted in her box it must be true God is malevolent. However I next examine the box for leaks and so forth. If you want to whine about that let me offer you some cheese and tissue as a companion of your sniffling. Shesh man lighten up.

 

[Pegg]

Which leads me to a question to which I want your reply. On what basis and verbiage can you build the case that if God exists, and this God is omnipotent and a good God, how could he have created humans any different than he did?
I am suggesting God did as He did because it was the only possible way to do it.

Who will be the first to bring up suffering?

Because he wanted them to be like him, it was the only possible way to create them.

 

[Meow Mix]

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."

Ok, I can understand why. What if I amended it to "As far as I can see..." to the front of each, and then ask if anyone can think of counterexamples.

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.

But these "good" things are only good to alleviate or prevent suffering; and become extraneous in the absence of the capacity for suffering. For instance, I could release a snake into a nursery to allow someone to be a hero: but am I benevolent to do so?

I like to use examples like "Right now, there's not a dragon in your house -- and right now, you're not experiencing a hero showing up to slay it." Is our day somehow diminished because we didn't get to witness a hero? The existence of justice, heroes, compassion, and so on relies on the existence of suffering -- that is true. Thus if suffering didn't exist then these things wouldn't exist. But is that in itself a bad thing?

Let's use an imaginary nursery right now where suffering doesn't normally occur. Is something wrong with this nursery until someone releases a snake in it for someone to step up and be a hero? I certainly don't see why this would be the case. This is why I don't understand the "But without suffering, X virtue wouldn't exist" objection. I don't think the objection fully thinks everything through.

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

Sure, but would you rather wake up, drink your coffee, read the paper/watch TV and then hang out with some friends... or would you like to wake up, slay the goblin under the bed, dodge the booby traps in the hallway, bring medicine to your sick housemate all while you're coming down with a nasty cough yourself?

Is suffering really required to have a fulfilling life? I certainly don't think so. Or at the very least, not the extent of suffering we have in this world. Do you object to the argument that it's cognitively logical that suffering doesn't have to be as prevalent or as severe as it is in this world?

Even if simply reduced suffering is logically possible, the PoE has full force because God still wouldn't be benevolent if He didn't minimize suffering.

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

Which is special pleading, and furthermore still raises questions about benevolence: do the ends justify the means, and why couldn't God -- an omnipotent being -- simply provided whatever benefits there are without the suffering? Unless there is an argument that pins down exactly how suffering causes a greater good that couldn't be accomplished without suffering, it's all special pleading and therefore does nothing to stop the force of the PoE.

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.

My premises gain their force from the fact that they're aimed at people who already accept the premises. If you don't accept the initial premises of the PoE then it simply doesn't apply because there's no contradiction unless all of the premises are in place.

Also, special pleading doesn't stop the force of the PoE. "Suffering could ultimately be good in some unknowable way" is special pleading, and doesn't resolve the PoE. No fallacy is ever an acceptable response to any logical argument.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

Pete, you need to stop talking so poorly to me. Seriously, we're friends here; there is no reason to be so belligerent.

The PoE can be solved. To solve the PoE, either theists need to drop one of the characteristics of God which leads to the contradiction or suffering needs to be explained.

Besides, since the PoE demonstrates a contradiction in some mainstream theistic concepts, saying that it "can't be solved" is the same as saying that those theistic concepts are irrational by way of having a problem that's insoluble.

So anyway, can you stop being mean to me? I've never been mean to you. Let's be pals and treat disagreements as fun little quirks about each other instead of accusing one another of throwing tantrums. Deal?

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

But the logical problem of evil is Epicurus's PoE.

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.

No, it doesn't specify that benevolence is the incorrect attribute. The problem is also solved by dropping omnipotence or omniscience, for instance. This has been true since Epicurus.

 

[Meow Mix]

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?

Well you're offering a theodicy here: You're suggesting that there's a greater purpose for suffering than just suffering's sake. To make this argument though you have to offer justificaiton. It may be a possibility, but just pointing out a "possible possibility" doesn't defeat the PoE.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

That's correct, the PoE only targets specific paradigms of theism.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is a common position, but it does suggest that God is subject to rules. Doesn't that mean there is something higher than God?

Yes, which is the basis for transcendental arguments concerning God. I have a thread floating around somewhere:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...al-argument-nonexistence-god.html#post1883753

 

[Meow Mix]

PoE = Problem of Evil

Meow Mix is convinced that the existence of evil and suffering makes God impossible. But let's not try to win an argument with a woman.

No, it doesn't make God impossible. It makes a very specific conception of God contradictory until the problem is resolved.

I'm going to assume that the latter half was a friendly joke and not a snide comment. It's hard to tell when you're so mean to me sometimes

 

[Meow Mix]

Of course I consider it, as I do consider a great many things.
I am merely saying it is possible God could not prevent suffering and create the world and the creatures in it without suffering.

She has painted one box, and I am pointing out that it is a solid box, but a box that can only conclude one thing. That one thing doesn't have to be true. Understand the difference? I already admitted in her box it must be true God is malevolent. However I next examine the box for leaks and so forth. If you want to whine about that let me offer you some cheese and tissue as a companion of your sniffling. Shesh man lighten up.

I just want to point out that I'm glad for it when anyone examines my arguments; it's like having peer review. It's good, it prevents intellectual stagnation.

However, to argue that it's possible God couldn't prevent suffering requires justification, which isn't forthcoming just yet.

 

[Revoltingest]

Meowgal...I'm going to do us a favor & stop quibbling. I think we agree so much more than we
disagree, that I want to avoid the complexity of arguing over pesky differences of reasoning.
It's been entertaining & enlightening. Btw, I'm a big fan of your brand of benevolence.

 

[Walkntune]

Well you're offering a theodicy here: You're suggesting that there's a greater purpose for suffering than just suffering's sake. To make this argument though you have to offer justificaiton. It may be a possibility, but just pointing out a "possible possibility" doesn't defeat the PoE.

Suffering comes with and also brings growth.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Suffering comes with and also brings growth.

But you do not need to suffer to grow, so why suffer?

 

[Walkntune]

But you do not need to suffer to grow, so why would suffering exist?

Who says? It is the fight that makes us strong. Help a bird out of its shell and it will die.