Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But you're assuming an exact and measurable definition for "evil" in order to presuppose that the riddle is logically valid. Therefore, we should assume an exact and measurable statement from you with regard to who does and does not take the riddle seriously.
Absurd. Obviously we get to decide since we decide on morality all the time. Every day people make moral decisions. Authority is irrelevant, we make decisions anyways. Humans determine morality as it has always been. Things are evil because humans generally agree they are evil.
This whole thing is a straw man, because it sets up a theologically untenable argument and then proceeds to knock it down. Or is this just another chapter in the tired old rant that fundamental Christian theology doesn't make sense. Because if that's the case, you could have just said so at the outset and then proceeded to logically show why, instead of using bad theology to attempt to disprove more bad theology.
Do we? There are lots of grey area arguments where ethics and morality are concerned. We don't "generally agree." Additionally, if we're going to begin with the assumption that God is omnipotent, then we must acknowledge that God gets to decide what constitutes evil and gets to decide what God's going to do about it -- and when. Anything other than that (including standing in judgment of God for not doing what we think God "ought" to do) is hubris. IF God is omnipotent. You don't get to play that card both ways to your advantage.
I'm perfectly calm.
This from the author of ...
yeah and that doesn't refute anything i've said. Nonetheless humans still make moral decisions and authority is determined arbitrarily. I never claimed there was an absolute standard, but generally I think most people would agree that genocide, slavery, rape, etc are wrong. There are certain morals that evolution has produced that are fundamental and key to human existence. it also depends on your definition of what good and evil are though. I mean since i didn't define evil or malevolence it means I don't have to associate any particular selection of morals either. Unless you claim that evil doesn't exist then as a general idea the argument still holds even if we can't necessarily define what evil is.
We must? Why must we? God is a conscious entity which makes his morals subjective like every other individual with "free will." From God's perspective he is perfectly good. He might claim that what he does is ultimately good but there is no law of physics requiring anyone to accept that. People can disagree with god's morals just like how people can disagree with other people. Also is God's idea that he is perfectly good and determines morality hubris? if not then why?
"All powerful" does imply that God gets to decide what is evil, actually. Because the same theology that declares God "omnipotent" does so in the context of the created order (of which our perception of "evil" is part). That means that everything is subject to God. Including what is or is not "evil."
Actually, it does imply that very thing. We don't accept God's morality, and that's truly what "evil" is. God doesn't stop us from disagreeing and, instead, allows us to make our own bed and then lie in it. Because "free will" is part of God's moral milieu. Where God's dealing with evil catches up is what happens when grace is applied.
But any argument about God necessarily starts with the established Tradition about God, and the established Tradition says that God is not only omnipotent, but good. You don't just get to make up stuff about God and then knock down those straw men. You have to argue the Tradition.
Those kinds of questions aren't theologically tenable. So why ask them?
You said that we generally agree. My statement directly refutes that. We don't generally agree.
Depends entirely on who you're talking to.
See, though, we don't get to have a definition with any sort of authority that would allow us to pass judgment on God's omnipotence. Which was my point exactly. Because there is no authoritative or "generally accepted" definition.
Because the theological milieu that claims God as "omnipotent" also claims that God is, thereby, "in charge."
Wow its an expression to mean many people. You're concerned with such irrelevant details. Are you only on this thread to highlight your lack of understanding of an expression?
You can't start from both because they're both contradictory. Plus what kind of God creates evil as part of his plan? After all God created everything. How can something be perfectly good but create everything that's evil?
How so? Again i'm not assuming that omnipotent means all good. Do you have some logical proof showing how all powerful leads to all good? I simply don't see it. Omnibenevolance is different from omnipotence and unless you've got some proof showing how all powerful means all good then I don't accept it. Also if God is omnipotent then can he do evil deeds? If not then he isn't omnipotent. if so then he isn't all good. An omnibenevolant being could never do anything evil by definition. I can ask many questions like this. Furthermore I've already shown how its completely contradictory. If God can do anything then he should be able to improve his morals. If he can't then he isn't omnipotent, and if he can then he isn't all good. rejecting this as untenable is a cop out.
it highlights a contradiction. Either God is not omnipotent or he isn't perfectly good. The idea of being all powerful and all good is contradictory which is what we're talking about. its logically tenable which is good enough. Logic supersedes theology any day.
No, from the perspective of the Tradition that formulates the theology, God is good. If you don't accept that theological statement, then you don't get to hold any other theological statement as authoritative or definitive of God, either. Which means that the riddle has no basis, and need not be asked.
We do generally agree that rape, genocide, etc is wrong. hence the word generally and not always. Negating what I said also isn't a refutation.
Hence I agreed its subjective.
I see no reason to associate omnipotence with omnibenevolence and moral authority. I can imagine a neutral God who is all powerful and doesn't concern himself with human morals since he is above it--the deistic kind of God. My point here is that being all powerful doesn't necessarily lead to being all good.
God didn't create "evil" as part of God's "plan."
We are created in the image of God (meaning -- in part -- that we have creative powers, too). We create our own "evil." Possibly a better question might be: "Why don't we take care of our own evil?"
The "contradiction" is borne out of creating the contradiction out of whole cloth in the first place.
Ask those who do the genocide if they think it's morally justifiable. Many of them would say it is. Therefore, it depends on who you ask. Generally.
Because those things are also put forth as attributes of God, within the same theological milieu. Therefore, they are all interconnected and interdependent.
"What I can imagine" and "what the Tradition has stated" are two different things. You have to argue within the established parameters, or the argument doesn't mean anything. You don't just get to say, "I think God is purple, and since God is purple..." The riddle begins with the Traditional assumption that God is both omnipotent and good. Then it steps outside the implications of "omnipotence" to assume the hubris of defining what constitutes "evil." Only God (in the theological milieu of "omnipotence") can define what constitutes "evil."
I don't know about Islam, but Judaism and Xy both describe God as good.
There are no "theological facts." There are "theological positions." Judging by this statement, you don't have a theological understanding, so you're playing with tools you don't know how to use, and you don't have a dog in this hunt. Heck, you don't even understand what a bad argument the riddle is!
No, it simply means that there are two contradictory positions. It's not a problem, because not all theological constructs have to agree in order to be valid.
If you had a grasp of the theology, you'd know that "all good" and "all powerful" are neither theologically unreasonable or contradictory.
You're trying to use "inches" to measure sound pressure here. As I surmised, you simply don't have a dog in the theological hunt. You'll disagree with that -- or else you'll claim that theology "doesn't really matter," not realizing that any talk of God is, necessarily, theology, and that there are parameters for any proposed hermeneutic or epistemological position.
The proposition that "God can act outside known scientific norms" isn't logical. God is the known scientific norms. It isn't logical to propose that something can be something other than what it is. God is also scientific norms we haven't discovered yet. That's why it's disingenuous to try to pin God down to a definition. We don't define God. We describe God.
God planned for free will, which, in turn, gives rise to evil. Therefore, "evil" is a by-product and not part of "the plan." In the 1940s, architects were using lead-based paint in their building plans. However, the resultant toxic fallout wasn't part of their "plan." It was a by-product.
Free will isn't contingent upon "evil." Free will sometimes results in "evil." Again: You don't measure the voltage across a circuit in pounds.
Where God is concerned, good/evil are existential positions, not actions. The correct theological proposition, therefore, isn't, "God cannot do evil," it's, "God isn't evil."
Again: the traits aren't contradictory from a theological standpoint, IF you define the terms correctly. You've failed to do that. "Lack of ability to be other than what God is" isn't the theological use of the term "omnipotent." That's a definition of your own choosing that's simply not present in the theological milieu you're arguing.
God isn't "a being." God is Being, itself. My conclusion is that you don't understand the theology you're arguing against, nor do you have the theological tools to propose a tenable, alternative theological argument.