Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

[PolyHedral]

Not if you couldn't die except voluntarily.

And if God doesn't have to know everything, what is the problem of Knowing Everything that Willamena mentioned?

 

[Willamena]

Not if you couldn't die except voluntarily.

And if God doesn't have to know everything, what is the problem of Knowing Everything that Willamena mentioned?

I wasn't referring to any particular argument, and I don't really care if there is one ---I was just demonstrating that the Problem of Evil addresses the attribute "benevolence". Other attributes are addessed by other arguments.

 

[Meow Mix]

But dropping omnipotence is the Problem of Doing Anything You Want. Dropping omniscience would be The Problem of Knowing Everything (or Anything). Those are distinct arguments.

The Problem of Evil drops benevolence.

No.

Look again at Epicurus's thingy:

If God is willing to prevent evil but unable, then he is impotent.
If He is able, but unwilling, then he is malevolent.
If He is able and willing, then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able or willing, then why call Him God?

Notice, actually, that the first solution Epicurus offers to the Problem of Evil is indeed dropping omnipotence. Only in the second line does he offer dropping benevolence.

It just turns out that dropping omniscience is another solution (perhaps God just didn't know how to prevent evil?)

The name of the problem is always "The Problem of Evil" regardless of whether it's omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence that's dropped in the deity's attributes because it's always the existence of evil that makes the contradiction apparent.

 

[Willamena]

Notice, actually, that the first solution Epicurus offers to the Problem of Evil is indeed dropping omnipotence. Only in the second line does he offer dropping benevolence.

Each line of the poem is an argument.

 

[Meow Mix]

Is there a requirement that God knows everything?

No, but it is a characteristic often ascribed to God. Dropping omniscience does solve the PoE as well. Many theists are unwilling to do it though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Then I'd say that you don't completely want to do them.

You are not just your conscious mind. You are the sum total of all your thoughts, motivations, desires, etc. IMO, if you want to do something wrong but you hold yourself back, it's because some other part of you that didn't want it overrode the part of you that did.

Also, I'm bound by commitments. Can God be bound by commitments?

IMO, that just pushes the problem back one step. An all-powerful God could presumably choose to honour a promise, but an all-knowing God would know the consequences of a promise before making it.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm not sure what it has to do with (a) God, but if there where no pain we would all die very quickly.

You're not going far enough.

Yes, if you don't feel pain when you rest your hand on a hot burner you will be badly injured.

I'm not asking "Why does stuff hurt?"

I'm asking "Why is stuff there that hurts us?"

Why does a hot burner have to burn our hands in the first place?

Yes, getting innoculated against diseases hurts because a needle pricks our skin. I'm not asking "Why does a needle hurt so bad?" but rather "Why are there diseases to innoculate against in the first place?" See?

 

[Meow Mix]

Each line of the poem is an argument.

No, each solution is interconnected to the others. It's all one argument. I can't see the benefit in arguing over this particular thing though, so we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Willamena]

No, each solution is interconnected to the others. It's all one argument. I can't see the benefit in arguing over this particular thing though, so we'll agree to disagree.

Thank you! (for saving my hair)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure what it has to do with (a) God, but if there where no pain we would all die very quickly.

Yes - because pain protects us from harm.

However, if there was no harm, there would be no need for pain.

 

[Willamena]

Yes - because pain protects us from harm.

However, if there was no harm, there would be no need for pain.

There would also be no events.

 

[PolyHedral]

All events cause pain?

 

[Willamena]

All events cause pain?

All events necessarily cause harm, if only to our prior picture of existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All events necessarily cause harm, if only to our prior picture of existence.

That sort of "harm" does not require the physical sensation of pain.

 

[logician]

An omnisicent god is helpless, as it knows all of its own future actions, which it cannot change, i.e. omniscience by necessity really is impossible. If it doesn't know its own future actions, it is not omniscient.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

Yes! And God's power is bigger than the limitations we put on His power. Always.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another thought:

There would also be no events.

So if Heaven exists, absolutely nothing happens there?

 

[Meow Mix]

And I sincerely hope you can do just that. I want that for you. But I would argue that heartbreak and sadness are part of being in love. There are good times and bad.

I agree with this. I haven't ever argued though that it's possible to have sentient beings without at least emotional suffering.

For instance even in a world without physical suffering, I can't fathom how we could have beings with free will where, say, someone loves someone else without that love being returned. Unrequited love may be a bit of necessary suffering that I can't argue against.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thank you! (for saving my hair)

Haha no problem.

I know I disagree over minor things a lot... I'm a tad pedantic. You're a great discussion partner though. Rock on Willamena :bow:

 

[Midnight Pete]

I agree with this. I haven't ever argued though that it's possible to have sentient beings without at least emotional suffering.

For instance even in a world without physical suffering, I can't fathom how we could have beings with free will where, say, someone loves someone else without that love being returned. Unrequited love may be a bit of necessary suffering that I can't argue against.

I don't think of unrequited love being as necessary or unnecessary. In fact, I don't think of suffering in general as being necessary or unnecessary. I just accept that suffering is.
Buddha Shakyamuni taught that suffering is a fact of life, and this insight he realized for himself.