Epicurus' riddle

[sojourner]

No you missed the point. I'm saying that therefore omnipotence doesn't necessarily mean omnibenevolence, not that i'm now advocating for a deistic God. That was just a counter example to show how omnipotence has nothing to do with benevolence.

In a vacuum, they aren't related. But we're talking about a theological proposition for God, in which they are interrelated. If you want to propose a different theological construct, you're welcome to do so, but I don't think, at that point, you could then call it "the Abrahamic God," unless you could provide airtight biblical and Talmudic/doctrinal bases for such a construct.

 

[Curious George]

God has the ability to foretell the future, but he can choose if and when he exercises that ability. A person who is a great singer does not need to sing all the time, but controls that ability. I believe the same is true regarding God's ability to foreknow the future. Thus, he gives us the right to choose our course, and does not predestine the choices we make nor their outcome.

God as a fortune teller? This is an interesting definition of knowledge with which you are working. Please expand. If god chooses not to know, then he doesn't know. If he doesn't know he cannot be omniscient by definition.

 

[rusra02]

There was a never a first human couple. there were always at least 1000 humans in order to preserve genetic diversity. Otherwise you're saying humanity originated entirely from incest which makes no sense. genetics would clearly indicate that we emerged from just two people due all the problems that result from invest.

God's original purpose for the first human couple was to "Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth." (Genesis 1:28)
Adam and Eve were perfect humans until they sinned. The problems associated with marriage between close relatives would likely not have been experienced in man's early history, IMO.

 

[sojourner]

God's original purpose for the first human couple was to "Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth." (Genesis 1:28)
Adam and Eve were perfect humans until they sinned. The problems associated with marriage between close relatives would likely not have been experienced in man's early history, IMO.

You're deluding yourself and don't understand either the metaphoric nature of the stories, or the nuances of meaning inherent in the original languages, if that's what you really think.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The problems associated with marriage between close relatives would likely not have been experienced in man's early history, IMO.

How would that even work? When would genetic diseases associated with inbreeding start to manifest?

 

[sojourner]

When would genetic diseases associated with inbreeding start to manifest?

When Arkansas gained statehood?

 

[rusra02]

God as a fortune teller? This is an interesting definition of knowledge with which you are working. Please expand. If god chooses not to know, then he doesn't know. If he doesn't know he cannot be omniscient by definition.

The true God can foreknow whatever he chooses to, and has prophesied historical events long before they occurred. If he chooses not to exercise his ability to foreknow something, that does not mean he is limited in some way. He is almighty, with limitless power. The fact that he does not always use that power does not mean he is not omnipotent. Jehovah is omnipotent, and he is omniscient in the sense that nothing can be hidden from him. (Hebrews 4:13)

 

[allfoak]

It seems like no religious person in the Abrahamic faiths takes Epicurus' riddle seriously:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

This of course is the key,

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Answer this question and it is unlikely you will continue to be a believer in one of the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Quagmire]

The whole problem with the Poe is that it presupposes the existence of evil in some objective and absolute sense, as opposed to the more common application where it means "Something that I personally object to".

. I said it seems like. As in its just an expression. . .

. . . that people tend to use when they want to make sweeping generalizations that they'd rather not be held accountable for later.

 

[rusra02]

How would that even work? When would genetic diseases associated with inbreeding start to manifest?

The Bible reveals early humans lived hundreds of years. Adam lived 930 years. (Genesis 5:5) By Moses day, the normal lifespan had fallen to 70-80 years. (Psalm 90:10) Also, it would not have taken many generations for inbreeding to no longer be a potential problem. The first written prohibition of marrying close relatives was in the Mosaic Law, I think. (Leviticus 18)

 

[rusra02]

You're deluding yourself and don't understand either the metaphoric nature of the stories, or the nuances of meaning inherent in the original languages, if that's what you really think.

Jesus Christ didn't consider the account of Adam to be metaphoric.(Matthew 19:5,6) I believe such an unwarranted interpretation is actually a repudiation of true Christian teaching. (Romans 5:12)

 

[Mycroft]

I believe the outcome shows otherwise. Adam and Eve are long since dead. Their descendants have been suffering due to their wrongdoing. And the spirit who deceived them is under sentence of death. Mankind's rebellion has resulted in the world situation we are in today. I don't see an upside to their rebellion.

Adam and Eve were brainwashed automatons, basically, before the eating of the fruit. The serpent, in convincing eve to eat of it, bestowed them with free will (unless you believe free-will is a mistake and a sin?), and the ability to think for themselves. The serpent is definitely the hero.

 

[Curious George]

The true God can foreknow whatever he chooses to, and has prophesied historical events long before they occurred. If he chooses not to exercise his ability to foreknow something, that does not mean he is limited in some way. He is almighty, with limitless power. The fact that he does not always use that power does not mean he is not omnipotent. Jehovah is omnipotent, and he is omniscient in the sense that nothing can be hidden from him. (Hebrews 4:13)

Omniscient. If he doesn't know, even by choice, he isn't it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God's original purpose for the first human couple was to "Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth." (Genesis 1:28)
Adam and Eve were perfect humans until they sinned. The problems associated with marriage between close relatives would likely not have been experienced in man's early history, IMO.

They couldn't sin in that instance, though, because "God knows man's heart" and withOUT a sense of knowledge of good and evil, it's IMPOSSIBLE to sin. You can be a screw-up, sure, but not a sinner, which is why God DIDN'T kill them and let them live absurdly long lives and create the human race.

The true God can foreknow whatever he chooses to, and has prophesied historical events long before they occurred. If he chooses not to exercise his ability to foreknow something, that does not mean he is limited in some way.

It's WORSE than not knowing. It's willfull negligence.

The Bible reveals early humans lived hundreds of years. Adam lived 930 years. (Genesis 5:5) By Moses day, the normal lifespan had fallen to 70-80 years. (Psalm 90:10)

God set the lifespan but we still have people who can, on rare occasion, get past that. I guess He stopped caring? And how did people live long lives after the Flood, when is where God set the new standard? Did He forget?

Jesus Christ didn't consider the account of Adam to be metaphoric.(Matthew 19:5,6) I believe such an unwarranted interpretation is actually a repudiation of true Christian teaching. (Romans 5:12)

Where did Jesus say it was literal? Just because he referenced a story doesn't make it literal. If I quote Harry Potter that doesn't make it literal history.

 

[viole]

Adam and Eve were perfect humans until they sinned.

Which leads to the concusion that they were not perfect to start with.

Ciao

- viole

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I believe the outcome shows otherwise. Adam and Eve are long since dead.

But they didn't die the day they ate the fruit. God lied.

Their descendants have been suffering due to their wrongdoing.

Their descendants have been suffering due to their own ****-ups - not this barbaric notion of original sin.

And the spirit who deceived them is under sentence of death.

So God is punishing the spirit for giving humankind free will and the ability to make choices - something he allowed the spirit to do in the first place. That's entrapment - something he intends to punish us all for. Yours is such a just god...

Mankind's rebellion has resulted in the world situation we are in today. I don't see an upside to their rebellion.

If Adam & Eve didn't 'rebel' then we wouldn't be here at all - humanity would't have come into being, much less advanced to the place we are now. Our situation is far from perfect, but at least there is a situation.

 

[Mycroft]

And here's the one thing people always forget: If god really, really didn't want anyone to eat of his precious tree, why didn't he make it higher? Or put it on another planet? Or something.

 

[serp777]

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."
You're getting yourself in a loop of circular reasoning.

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.

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.

If the architects knew about the poisonous and detrimental effects of lead based paint in their buildings and used it anyways, then they've committed a crime. Surely you'll agree that using something with the knowledge of the negative impact it will have makes it your fault. Carrying around radioactive waste knowing the harmful effects of it, and then putting it in the water supply is also surely a crime. God knows all and knew what was going to happen when he started using free will and therefore just like the painters he is the cause of evil. Also that's yet still another argument against omnipotence and omnibenevolence--is God not able to make a world where evil doesn't exist, or less evil exists, but yet you still have free will? If not then he is not all powerful, and if so then he isn't all good since he could have made the world less evil or removed evil entirely.

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.

How is that analogy applicable? Also free will is contingent upon evil since if you could not commit an evil action then you would have limited free will--you would only be able to do morally justified actions and so you could not make a decision any other way.

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.

You're portraying the theology of abrahamic faiths as if its one thing, one interpretation. That's entirely false. That's why there are so many different sects, because of all the different interpretations. Omnipotent means all powerful to many theologians. if God can't do certain things then he isn't all powerful. Its as simple as that. I've shown that being all powerful and all moral is contradictory. If you can't do an evil action then you aren't all powerful and you don't have free will since you could only choose the right actions each time. And if you can do an evil action then you aren't all good because something that is all good could commit no wrong actions. You're imposing your own definitions here and claiming them as facts- I don't even know or necesserily accept which definitions you're using; you haven't clearly defined what omnipotent, omnibenevolence, and omniscience actually mean to you. Here are some of the possibilities of different theological interpretations:

1. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]
2. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
3. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]
4. A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
6. Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

. I'm going by the dictionary definition, not your interpretation of what some theology has said about it. How could I know what your definition is? There are thousands of different theological perspectives and interpretations that exist for Christianity alone so define which one you're talking about and make a case for why you can solely determine the superior theological perspective I should be arguing against.

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

Sorry that's a complete assertion and solely your interpretation. Many people consider God to be a personal being. Many people and theologians say God is all powerful and all good. SOme say he is only maximally powerful and good. Saying God is being itself is MEANINGLESS. At least, I have no clue what you're talking about and have never heard people say that God is the attribute itself. Don't chalk it up to mystery either. Furthermore Rejecting the argument a theologically untenable because it contradicts your ideas of theology and its definition is ridiculous. Again, even if this was the only theological perspective, it still doesn't supersede logical consistency. Define the different terms including what God is being means.

What you're doing is a semantics argument alone. If you don't define omnipotence as all powerful then in what sense is he god? This is still covered by epicurus' argument.

My conclusion is that you don't understand the theology you're arguing against

Yeah i'm confused about this theology i'm arguing against. I have no idea which theology you're even talking about since there are many. I only said I was arguing against the abrhamaic faiths in general and in particular the case made where God is all good, all powerful, and all knowing but also tests humans. This is a pretty common theological perspective. Epicurus' argument also isn't arguing against one particular theology so please be clearer which of the thousands of interpretations you're tlaking about. I can't read your mind.

 

[serp777]

The whole problem with the Poe is that it presupposes the existence of evil in some objective and absolute sense, as opposed to the more common application where it means "Something that I personally object to".



. . . that people tend to use when they want to make sweeping generalizations that they'd rather not be held accountable for later.

The whole problem with the Poe is that it presupposes the existence of evil in some objective and absolute sense, as opposed to the more common application where it means "Something that I personally object to".

But the argument presupposes the existence of God as its hypothesis and religious people mostly agree that with God there is an absolute/objective morality. Based on these assumptions, the argument is meant to show the possible outcomes in such a situation which all lead to theologically unfavorable conclusions. So yeah the argument presupposes God exists and there are morals but the point of the argument isn't to disprove God, its to show the problematic conclusions from these hypotheses. I mean unless you're arguing that God doesn't have an absolute morality then this point seems fairly moot.

that people tend to use when they want to make sweeping generalizations that they'd rather not be held accountable for later.

Ugh, this again? I said it seems like which means it seems like to me. Seems implies my personal experience and limited knowledge. Plus it was an expression anyways to mean a lot of people. Have you ever heard: God it seems like everyone these days is a bad driver. That's just an expression--it doesn't mean that person thinks all drivers are bad. I mean so far only two people have had a problem with this so clearly people recognize that it is actually just an expression.

I didn't say that i've met every religious person so it doesn't apply to all people. Anyways its not significant since I've explained already that's not what i meant. I could have made it clearer but people could have also given the benefit of the doubt and asked specifically what i meant instead of jumping the gun and getting all butthurt. I shouldn't have assumed that everyone would be able to understand, but can we just get over this trivial nonsense?

 

[Quagmire]

But the argument presupposes the existence of God as its hypothesis

Uh huh.

and religious people mostly agree that with God there is an absolute/objective morality.

Why would what religious people mostly agree enter into it?

Based on these assumptions, the argument is meant to show the possible outcomes in such a situation which all lead to theologically unfavorable conclusions. So yeah the argument presupposes God exists and there are morals but the point of the argument isn't to disprove God,

The point of the argument is to show that if there is a God, He couldn't possibly be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent.

Where it fails, IMO, is in it's dependence on the idea of some sort of pre-established, objective definition of evil.

I don't believe there is one. IMO, all morality is subjective.

If there is an omnipotent God, He/She/It wouldn't be subject to anything, therefore subjectivity doesn't apply.

In order to make the PoE work, you would have to come up with an example of evil that wasn't subjective.