Epicurus' riddle

[sojourner]

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.

Operative concept here: "I have no clue..." That's why you simply don't have a dog in this hunt. You're arguing theology without arguing theology. It doesn't work that way. Just because you haven't heard the concept and don't understand it, doesn't mean that it's "meaningless."

"Logical consistency" includes acknowledging the viability of an argument -- even if you don't understand it.

One of the most basic theological understandings of God that pervades both Xy and Judaism is that life and existence only occur because of -- and within -- God. Humanity became a "living being" only because humanity was infused with Holy Spirit. That's basic to the creation myths. If you don't understand that basic bit of theology (again), you don't have a dog in this hunt.

 

[sojourner]

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

That's why it's a non-argument. Arguments have to be specific. Which theological construction or facet is it arguing against? By generalizing all perspectives, the "argument" creates a straw man to knock down.

Yes, that's the one thing you've said that I agree with: You're grossly confused with regard to theology and have no business playing with things you don't understand.

 

[sojourner]

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

Yup.

 

[Mycroft]

Since Adam and Eve decided to rebel against God .

But you said they had no desire to do wrong, so therefore could have no desire to rebel.

 

[Mycroft]

Since Adam and Eve decided to rebel against God by eating what God had forbidden, I think it is obvious they had free will before Satan's slanders against God induced Eve to sin. I think it is similar to a gang leader urging a new gang member to steal a car. The new gang member already had free will to steal a car. The gang leader merely urged him to do so.

Also, you failed to supply an answer as to whether you think free will is a good thing or not?

 

[sojourner]

But you said they had no desire to do wrong, so therefore could have no desire to rebel.

Is rebellion a wrongdoing, or is it a normal part of the maturation process?

 

[Unification]

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.

To me, it's pretty clear. The story of Adam, Eve, and the serpent is not literal or historical.

They represent the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious minds that give birth to knowledge. That knowledge inhabits the brain and body in dendritic branches/nerves. Some knowledge "good," and some knowledge that's "wicked."

The tree represents the human brain and the spinal cord. The serpent coiled around the spinal cord.

 

[serp777]

That's why it's a non-argument. Arguments have to be specific. Which theological construction or facet is it arguing against? By generalizing all perspectives, the "argument" creates a straw man to knock down.

Yes, that's the one thing you've said that I agree with: You're grossly confused with regard to theology and have no business playing with things you don't understand.

Well you're entitled to your over the top opinion. I have as much business talking about theology as someone who writes ambiguous nonsense like "God is being" as if that means anything. Give me a break, you're not a theological authority-- you have no right dictating who has the ability to talk about theology or not. Be real, get serious. You don't get to define the true understanding of theology. And yeah I don't understand and am confused byyour interpretation because its ambiguous, meaningless and full of nonsense like "God is being" which you left as general and as vague as possible. On the one hand you're complaining to me about not being more specific when you've been even less specific and more vague than I have. You've failed to define any of your terms whereas I have defined words like omnipotent and omnipresent and omnibenevolent etc on numerous occasions. I also asked you earlier to give a specific interpretation that you thought would be superior as an example, which you haven't provided. It would surely be stupid and crazy time consuming to go through and cover each individual theological perspective in precise detail. i mean surely you recognize this for the sake of being able to move this thread along that I will only be able to cover things which people commonly believe. But then its hilarious because you talk as if you're the one who determines the true theology! Such arrogance.

So go back through this thread and read what i've written. It addresses a fairly common interpretation of the Abrahamic God as an all good, all powerful, all knowing God who puts us on this earth to test us and also defines morality for us. I also address the importance of belief without evidence as the means of salvation. I mean all of these are specific facets of the Abrahamic faiths which are commonly subscribed to. If you seriously haven't been able to grasp this by now i doubt you'll ever be able to. Its not like anyone else is having these issues with my specificity.

By generalizing all perspectives, the "argument" creates a straw man to knock down.

Its not that general. I have specific features of the God and the theology I was talking about. It would be impossible to precisely define any major theological belief here in full detail. Entire books are written on theology and you want me to be even more specific than I already have.

 

[serp777]

Operative concept here: "I have no clue..." That's why you simply don't have a dog in this hunt. You're arguing theology without arguing theology. It doesn't work that way. Just because you haven't heard the concept and don't understand it, doesn't mean that it's "meaningless."

"Logical consistency" includes acknowledging the viability of an argument -- even if you don't understand it.

One of the most basic theological understandings of God that pervades both Xy and Judaism is that life and existence only occur because of -- and within -- God. Humanity became a "living being" only because humanity was infused with Holy Spirit. That's basic to the creation myths. If you don't understand that basic bit of theology (again), you don't have a dog in this hunt.

You're arguing theology without arguing theology.

Just because what you're saying is meaningless doesn't mean I can't reasonably discuss theology. i can't discuss your ridiculous interpretation but that doesn't mean your interpretation is all of theology.

Humanity became a "living being" only because humanity was infused with Holy Spirit.

The holy spirit and the trinity is a Christian concept and I didn't specify Christianity alone. I just said Abrahamic faiths because it would take way to long to go over all the interpretations of all of the sects of all of the faiths.

And that just sounds like more of your personal dogma that you're asserting as the correct theology. Another interpretation which is supported by the old testament is that God made Adam in his image, nothing to do with the holy ghost, when God breathed life into some dust. So in this interpretation, the first humans were living beings once they came into existence and the holy spirit isn't relevant. Islam would say the idea of having a trinity in the first place is completely illogical since there is only one God and the idea of having three Gods who are one God, but that the main God is also three Gods is completely senseless and incomprehensible. The holy ghost, I would assert, seems completely superfluous to believing in God anyways. Why would you need God's alter ego? That's when you pull out convenience words like mystery. Some people like WLC and john lennox actually make cases but their interpretations and arguments differ from yours--the point is that understanding your particular understanding of theology a commonly accepted interpretation, or at least You haven't explained your position well enough anyways for me to know if some parts of it are or aren't/.

I specifically excluded details like holy casper so that I could address people from various religions and make the thread more accessible. Most people recognize this point which is why they don't have all these insignificant complains about specificity that you do.

"Logical consistency" includes acknowledging the viability of an argument -- even if you don't understand it.

Logical consistency for you also includes acknowledging the numerous contradictions I brought up about a God who is all good and all powerful. Literally your best argument was that its theologically untenable. I'll just say it isn't because many religious people think God is all powerful AND all good. Its clearly teneble for many religious people, and theology is a matter of perspective and subjectivity anyways. You're doing the same thing now though--the argument is allegedly valid "even if you don't understand it" . My understanding is irrelevant to the validity of your argument even though I reject that your argument is clear, understandable, and valid. Its thoroughly ambiguous and meaningless.

You've somehow connected "God is being" with the holy Ghost being infused into humanity so that humanity could become living. How does adding another theological assertion here support your point? Why should anyone accept this? And humanity becoming a living being makes no sense too btw. Humanity isn't a person. Humanity is made from people but humanity is just an abstract label to define our species and so clearly that's wrong again. And you still haven't define omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience; if you're going to show my arguments are untenable then you'd have to show why the definitions i've used are wrong and why they don't fit into theology.

This once again goes back to epicurus' argument once again, which doesn't need to be completely specified, where if God is all powerful and all good, then he should prevent evil. If he isn't all powerful and cannot stop evil then how is he God? If he can stop evil but won't then its malevolence. So you haven't even touched epicurus' argument except to say you don't need to take it seriously. This is why i brought up the whole point about us being tested--people argue against epicurus by saying that God is all powerful and all good, but he doesn't stop evil because all will be set right in the future when he judges everyone after this test. This is an extremely common and well accepted theological perspective in the Abrahamic faiths.

Go look online to common rebuttals to epicurus' argument, I've read them. And none of them made any laughable claims saying "God is being". that sounds more like a platitude, I expect something like "God is love" and "God is the universe" and "God is intelligence." I mean I can keep making up that junk all day which is exactly like "God is being." Surely if God was infinite he would be more than being--he would be the maximum amount of information possible.

 

[Useless2015]

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

No. God causes evil.

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

God causes evil

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

God causes evil

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

God causes evil

 

[serp777]

When one argues theology, one uses a theological definition. "Power" means something completely different in the electrical-circuit world than it does in the diesel-engine world. You can't measure the horsepower of an engine in terms of watts. You can't measure electrical power in terms of bhp. There are any of several ways to express omnipotence theologically, and they all depend upon circumstances involved. You can't just set up some arbitrary and logically-impossible scenario and then declare that "God is not omnipotent." You have to work within the parameters of any of several theological constructs that describe omnipotence. So far, you haven't done that.

I just gave you five different theological definitions that different theologians use for omnipotent. And I didn't claim God is not omnipotent, you seriously don't understand epicurus' argument and my modifications. Its not to show that God isn't omnipotent, its to show that a God who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent is inconsistent with out reality. I've shown the contradictions again and again and epicurus has too.

And yeah i have worked within the parameters--many people say God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. Are you saying he isn't these things? I made an argument based on that. I'm glad you agree its logically preposterous, since that's what i'm arguing--that its senseless to say God is all powerful and all good. You can't have it both ways. I gave you another option earlier--like that God is maximally good and maximally powerful, but that would mean he is limited.

 

[Mycroft]

Is rebellion a wrongdoing, or is it a normal part of the maturation process?

According to the Bible, rebellion against god would be wrongdoing. So therefore, according to rusra's logic, Adam and Eve would have no desire to rebel.

The kind of rebellion you refer to, however (your point is well taken), would require the kind of morality that could only come from eating of the fruit.

 

[prometheus11]

Sojourner,

You state that God can't create the world any way.

Whose rules must God follow when creating? Does the entity that informs God how he can and can't create have a name? Why do you call God, God, if he has to adhere to rules he doesn't design?

Thanks.

 

[prometheus11]

Sojourner,

When a child is being hurt or molested why does God allow the molester all the free will he wants to molest but does not give the child any free will to escape the molestation?

Thanks.

 

[Koldo]

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 request substantiation for this claim.
Regardless, if the PoE can establish that God is not good in some objective and absolute sense then that is already sufficient as far as the PoE is concerned. Which is exactly what you have to concede if you argument that evil is subjective ( as in a personal preference ).

 

[sojourner]

I have as much business talking about theology as someone who writes ambiguous nonsense like "God is being" as if that means anything.

You have as much business talking authoritatively about theology as Genghis Khan had talking authoritatively about quantum physics.

you're not a theological authority

I am, actually.

You don't get to define the true understanding of theology.

There is no "true understanding of theology." That's what you don't get. You believe it's some kind of scientific discipline with measurable data, and absolute mathematical constants, and some kind of quantifiable cosmology. And then you ridicule it because it fails to stand up to your "rigorous" and ridiculous standards. My "authority" on the subject comes because I've spent years in the academic discipline and professionally involved in the formulation and application of theology; I know what's reasonable in the discipline, I know what "works" and what doesn't, and I have a good grasp of the theological milieu. I've also read here how your "arguments" have no support, because you can't even talk rationally about God's nature.

And yeah I don't understand and am confused byyour interpretation because its ambiguous, meaningless and full of nonsense like "God is being" which you left as general and as vague as possible.

A lot of God-descriptions are, necessarily, "vague," because God can't be pinned down to a definition.

On the one hand you're complaining to me about not being more specific when you've been even less specific and more vague than I have.

It depends on what's being put out there as some sort of standard. You're simply not sticking with a single line of thought, or one specific description of God; you're all over the place. you have to argue from a specific construction. That's why I said you can't measure EMF across a circuit in pounds. I'm arguing from a specific construction, and you just don't get it, because you've never "heard of it before."

You've failed to define any of your terms whereas I have defined words like omnipotent and omnipresent and omnibenevolent etc on numerous occasions.

But not using the theological definitions of the terms. Let me try to assuage your confusion. You see, "omnipotence" isn't some objective, absolute definition that stands outside God, that can be used to "measure" God, as you're trying to do here. "Omnipotence" is a specific concept for God -- one particular (among many) construction for talking about God, and it means something completely different than a dictionary definition. It can also take on multiple meanings, depending on the specific circumstances to which it may be applied. That's why I've said that the whole riddle is a non-argument, because it takes that one, specific construction, tortures it to mean something it was never intended to mean, and then trying to pound it into a completely different cosmological model. Sort of like trying to force an SD90MAC engine into a Prius. God isn't either "omnipotent" or not, based on some arbitrary "standard" of "omnipotentness." "Omnipotence" is a term that is somewhat loosely applied to describe the absolute power of God over and especially within God's creation.

You have to understand that God doesn't stand outside God's creation -- at least within the bounds of orthodox Christian theological understanding. Jesus is the lynchpin here. Jesus places God firmly within the created order. IOW, God works from within the created order, it's limits and boundaries, and those limits and boundaries are reflections of God's nature. So the whole theodicy argument is a non-argument (and that's really what the Riddle is -- a theodicy argument), because theodicy has God standing completely outside the bounds of the created order, completely dismissing the whole concept of God's imminence, which is a very important piece of the "God puzzle."

So, on a practical note, what you're doing is taking the "omnipotence" construction, which places an emphasis on God's imminence, and takes away that imminence, insisting that God work outside the boundaries and limits of the created order. Then you insist that "God isn't really omnipotent." As I said, it's like putting a set of scales under an electrical circuit, finding no weight there, and insisting that the circuit has no EMF across it.

It would surely be stupid and crazy time consuming to go through and cover each individual theological perspective in precise detail.

That's why I haven't really bothered to provide what you've asked. You haven't asked for anything specific to any one construction. You want me to explain the whole universe -- in minute and specific detail -- in one concise paragraph. Ain't gonna happen.

i mean surely you recognize this for the sake of being able to move this thread along that I will only be able to cover things which people commonly believe.

I don't think you have any idea, though, what "people commonly believe." You certainly haven't demonstrated such knowledge in your blather about "omnipotence." Theology is a complicated business; most folks can't explain why they believe what they believe, and can't come up with reasonable and concise models for their beliefs. Theologians do that work for them. Most folks, for example, believe that "God is omnipotent." But they can't explain, exactly, what that means. They believe it, because they intuit that God's power is Absolute. But then they go running away with the logic and begin to think that God does magical acts, or that God "could have created the world any way God chose." But the real issue -- if you want to get down to the brass tacks -- is that God DIDN'T created the world in any other manner than God created it, and it's, therefore, POINTLESS to speculate anything different. We work with what we have. And what we have is the created order. And we say that, within that framework, God is omnipotent -- that is, God had the ultimate power to create the universe as it is -- not as we wish it to be.

The complication arises when we begin to define "evil" on our terms and throw that monkey wrench into the works. Again, you, like most folks, poison the water by trying to force concepts like "good" and "evil" into definitions that are too arbitrary. The theologian seeks to define the world on God's terms. The layperson seeks to define God on our terms. And that's what the Riddle does -- it seeks to define God on our terms, not taking under consideration that one of the most basic tenets of the Abrahamic faiths is that we are part of and subject to God's world, and not the other way 'round. Therefore, the riddle cannot, by definition, be a theological argument, because it seeks to define God on the world's terms. Less confused now?

But then its hilarious because you talk as if you're the one who determines the true theology! Such arrogance.

It's an arrogance from your perspective. An experienced engineer talking about the aerodynamics of the space shuttle seems "arrogance" from the position of a hotel maid.

It addresses a fairly common interpretation of the Abrahamic God as an all good, all powerful, all knowing God who puts us on this earth to test us and also defines morality for us.

I don't think, in the first place, that it's a fair representation of a "common interpretation." In the second place, I don't think it's a very "common" interpretation that "God placed us here to test us." At least not within the circles of polite academia, where theology is concerned. It creates a straw man that is incongruent -- at least where Xy is concerned. And that's the only realm in which my expertise extends.

I also address the importance of belief without evidence as the means of salvation.

...Which also isn't real theology. "Belief without evidence" isn't, theologically "the means of salvation." At least, again, where Xy is concerned.

I mean all of these are specific facets of the Abrahamic faiths which are commonly subscribed to.

No, they're not. You think they are -- but they're not. Xy, Judaism, and Islam are WIDELY diverse in their theological constructions. You can't simply lump them all together as you have and maintain the integrity of any one of them.

If you seriously haven't been able to grasp this by now i doubt you'll ever be able to. Its not like anyone else is having these issues with my specificity.

There aren't very many other theologians here to take issue with your "specificity."

 

[dust1n]

How did you get "Is required to" from "Chooses to" and "can't" from "Chooses not to"?

Sorry for the late response.

I'll try to explain better. You said:

"He may have an infinite number of choices for achieving whatever it is He's trying to achieve, but choose Tay-Sachs disease --- or suffering in general --- for His own reasons, reasons we couldn't possibly fathom."

If God has reasons for taking some action, be they fathomable or not, then the fact that God must take some action in order to accomplish some reason means God did not have an option of satisfying that reason without taking the action he took. Even if God gave some one a carriage for their birthday, and the supposed reason he did so was strictly because he felt like it, it means that could God could not satisfied his "feeling like it" without giving the person the carriage, unless he had reasons for doing so. In which case, rinse and repeat, ad infinitum.

You can't do that if we're talking about the Problem of Evil. You would have to change it to the "Problem of Unpleasantness", which isn't the same thing.

Isn't the problem of evil pretty much rooted in the problem of unpleasantness? If everything was pleasant, we wouldn't be talking about evil at all.

That's just a subjective human opinion. If you're going to apply subjectivity to a being that's isn't subject to anything, you can make him anything you want.

I guess that is true. I guess then, I see no reason why God's opinion is objective while mine is subjective. What basis for knowing truth does God have that I do not? If God says there is no objective evil, thus, no problems here, how am I to take it that his perception is worth more than anyone else's?

 

[dust1n]

Is rebellion a wrongdoing, or is it a normal part of the maturation process?

What about rape?

 

[sojourner]

Just because what you're saying is meaningless doesn't mean I can't reasonably discuss theology.

Just because you don't understand theology doesn't mean what I'm saying is "meaningless." So far, you haven't shown here that you can discuss theology reasonably, because none of your arguments have been theologically reasonable.

The holy spirit and the trinity is a Christian concept and I didn't specify Christianity alone. I just said Abrahamic faiths because it would take way to long to go over all the interpretations of all of the sects of all of the faiths.

You can't place "Abrahamic faiths" under that broad umbrella, because each of them is distinct in its theology. What holds true for one, theologically, does not hold true for another.

And that just sounds like more of your personal dogma that you're asserting as the correct theology.

"Sounds like" and "is" are two different things. Fact is, what I said above is a widely-accepted exegetical understanding of the creation myths.

Another interpretation which is supported by the old testament is that God made Adam in his image, nothing to do with the holy ghost, when God breathed life into some dust.

That's a faulty interpretation, because God -- according to the language -- didn't "breathe life." God "breathed." And the word for "breath" is the same as the word for "spirit." It was after God breathed that the lumps of clay became nephesh -- or "living beings."
Details are important.

So in this interpretation, the first humans were living beings once they came into existence and the holy spirit isn't relevant.

Actually, it is, owing to the language used in the text.

Islam would say the idea of having a trinity in the first place is completely illogical since there is only one God and the idea of having three Gods who are one God, but that the main God is also three Gods is completely senseless and incomprehensible.

What Islam has to say about the Trinity isn't cogent. They aren't equipped to understand the theology any better than you, apparently.

The holy ghost, I would assert, seems completely superfluous to believing in God anyways.

What you would assert is relatively meaningless, in light of the overwhelming biblical evidence for God being linked to Spirit.

Why would you need God's alter ego?

Spirit isn't an "alter ego." It's God.

That's when you pull out convenience words like mystery.

No mystery necessary. All that's required is a proper reading of the texts.

I specifically excluded details like holy casper so that I could address people from various religions and make the thread more accessible. Most people recognize this point which is why they don't have all these insignificant complains about specificity that you do.

Specificity is necessary to any coherent discussion of theology. Which theology are we discussing? Because there really is no "general theology" common to the three major branches of Abrahamic faith. Other than "God is."

Logical consistency for you also includes acknowledging the numerous contradictions I brought up about a God who is all good and all powerful.

Your contradictions, themselves, aren't logical. Therefore, they aren't really contradictions, in the strict definition of the term. Nonexistent things don't warrant acknowledgment.

Literally your best argument was that its theologically untenable.

Since theology is what is under the microscope, it's a damn good argument. And a correct assessment, I might add.

I'll just say it isn't because many religious people think God is all powerful AND all good. Its clearly teneble for many religious people, and theology is a matter of perspective and subjectivity anyways.

"Many religious people" can't formulate a coherent argument for their beliefs. Making the beliefs, themselves, untenable without the supporting structure of a reasonable theological construct that makes sense.

Yes. Theology is a matter of perspective and is subjective. But it has a logical and reasonable framework that your argument lacks.

the argument is allegedly valid "even if you don't understand it" .

Rocket science works even if you don't understand it, too.

Its thoroughly ambiguous and meaningless.

Until your arguments gain meaning, my responses to them will tend to reflect that meaninglessness.

You've somehow connected "God is being" with the holy Ghost being infused into humanity so that humanity could become living. How does adding another theological assertion here support your point?

In the same way that adding more support beams to a structure help to further define, refine, and complete that structure. So far all you've got is a house of cards. Somebody needs to build a viable theological structure. from your posts thus far, it obviously isn't going to be you...
Which is why I said that you really don't have a dog in this hunt.

And humanity becoming a living being makes no sense too btw. Humanity isn't a person. Humanity is made from people but humanity is just an abstract label to define our species and so clearly that's wrong again.

It doesn't make sense until you understand the fluid nature of the biblical language and the translational process. "Adam" means "humanity." The literary character of "Adam" is a metaphor for "humanity," in our postmodern, Western understanding. Again: another reason why you don't have a dog in this hunt. You can't create a circuit if you don't understand what a "volt" is, and how it differs from and relates to a "watt."

And you still haven't define omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience; if you're going to show my arguments are untenable then you'd have to show why the definitions i've used are wrong and why they don't fit into theology.

I explained this in my post above. Theological definitions are specific to the work of theology. "Dictionary definitions" don't always fit the theological mold. It's like trying to use the word "pound," meaning how much a dog weighs, within the context of traditional British currency. It. Doesn't. Work. The specific definitions of those terms are couched in theological understanding, not etymological origin.

This once again goes back to epicurus' argument once again, which doesn't need to be completely specified, where if God is all powerful and all good, then he should prevent evil.

'K... Define your terms. What constitutes "good?" What constitutes "evil?" Does God's omnipotence mean that God has the power to magically make the world something other than it is? Not by the theological use of that term, it doesn't. That's simply not what "omnipotence" refers to, theologically. Which is why the Riddle fails as a viable, theological argument.

What "evil" should God "prevent?" How do we know that these things are, objectively, "evil?" Who decides? Where does the definitional "buck" stop? Theology says that that buck stops with God. God determines what is "evil," and God deals with it in God's way, because the cosmos (in one particular theological understanding) not only belongs to God and is subject to God's "whims," but is God. "Omnipotence" means that God has the power to create all that is created. "Omnipotence" doesn't mean that God can create anything God wants to.

So you haven't even touched epicurus' argument except to say you don't need to take it seriously.

Correct. This is because Epicurus twists the meaning of "omnipotence" and forces an arbitrary definition upon "evil." Epicurus is simply bad theology, because it's incongruent with long-accepted norms of theological thought.

This is why i brought up the whole point about us being tested--people argue against epicurus by saying that God is all powerful and all good, but he doesn't stop evil because all will be set right in the future when he judges everyone after this test. This is an extremely common and well accepted theological perspective in the Abrahamic faiths.

It's a really bad apologetic, IMO. It attempts to provide a logical explanation for a very illogical line of "reasoning." What needs to happen (again, IMO) is for people to rethink what constitutes "evil," and why God "ought to stop it." Biblically, humanity creates its own calamities and atrocities, and we are expected to be held responsible for such. What do you think God created that is "evil?"

Surely if God was infinite he would be more than being--he would be the maximum amount of information possible.

What is "more" than Being??? What is "more" than Existence??? We are here -- we exist -- but we have existence only within That Which Exists -- which is ... God. That's what you don't understand. God is everything. God is All. And existence is good, is it not?

 

[sojourner]

I just gave you five different theological definitions that different theologians use for omnipotent. And I didn't claim God is not omnipotent, you seriously don't understand epicurus' argument and my modifications. Its not to show that God isn't omnipotent, its to show that a God who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent is inconsistent with out reality. I've shown the contradictions again and again and epicurus has too.

The contradictions are a house of cards. No substance -- only facade.

many people say God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. Are you saying he isn't these things?

Yes, God is those things, but what does "all powerful" mean? I've addressed this twice now.

that's what i'm arguing--that its senseless to say God is all powerful and all good.

Only if you twist meanings and torture certain constructions.