How an Omnipotent and All Loving God cannot exist.

[Jeremy Taylor]

This scenario need not be physical, it just has to possible. If a spiritual world is possible it fits this category of possible worlds. So God is culpable for our actions thus not benevolent since we were not placed in the evil free world.

This would presumably rely on the validity of a Lewisian possible worlds understanding of modality. It would also rely on there in fact being a world in which there can be corporeality without suffering, and, indeed, the controversial point that there is a best possible world.

But anyway, can it not be argued that our world is not good?

 

[idea]

Well, it is certainly the case that many responses include the point that God cannot do certain things, but that is not necessarily to lessen his omnipotence any more than saying he cannot do what is logically impossible, like not be God.

It is not impossible for God to fall from being God... there are a number of scenarios where "God would cease to be God"
Alma 42:25
25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

No respectable theologian would suggest God can do what is logically impossible (and, of course, the so called POE is only a problem if logic holds).

Anyway, you do not show where this contradiction is. Can you kindly draw up an argument in standard form that shows a strict contradiction between God's existence and the existence of any evil.

Sorry, I don't do "standard form"

I think any contradiction comes from a misunderstanding of what "create" entails.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_creator.html
Child Root (Branches of the Tree)

Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foreign concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.

In other words, God is cleaning up a mess He did not create, and He is doing it without taking away our free will.

What does adopt mean? Adopt means to take care of someone you did not create...

Romans 8:15
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

God is not the only eternal entity, He did not create everything, He did not create evil. "Create" is better translated as "transform" or "organize".

Those who believe in ex-Nihlo creationism are the ones who have trouble reconciling evil with the existence of God.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

This scenario need not be physical, it just has to possible. If a spiritual world is possible it fits this category of possible worlds. So God is culpable for our actions thus not benevolent since we were not placed in the evil free world.

The spiritual world isn't bound by the laws of our universe as I'm sure there are other universes that are also not bound by this universe's laws. Humanity creates evil, but not all humans do. We can live in a physical world with no evil but it would require our own efforts and not that of a Gods'.

 

[Quagmire]

If God is willing to destroy evil but not able to, then he is not all powerful.
If God can destroy evil but chooses not to, then he is responsible for all evil.
If God can destroy evil and chooses to, then evil cannot exist.
If God is not able to and is not willing to destroy evil, then he is not God.

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?

-Epicurus

All of this is predicated on the assumption that such a thing as "evil" actually exists outside of human opinion.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

It is not impossible for God to fall from being God... there are a number of scenarios where "God would cease to be God"
Alma 42:25
25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.



Sorry, I don't do "standard form"

I think any contradiction comes from a misunderstanding of what "create" entails.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_creator.html
Child Root (Branches of the Tree)

Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foreign concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.

In other words, God is cleaning up a mess He did not create, and He is doing it without taking away our free will.

What does adopt mean? Adopt means to take care of someone you did not create...

Romans 8:15
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

God is not the only eternal entity, He did not create everything, He did not create evil. "Create" is better translated as "transform" or "organize".

Those who believe in ex-Nihlo creationism are the ones who have trouble reconciling evil with the existence of God.

I am not sure what you mean when you say God can not be God. In classical theism he is immutable.

I agree that God did not create evil as evil is privation, a lack of being and goodness, and has no existence in its own right.

But you seem to be advocating some kind of dualism.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

All of this is predicated on the assumption that such a thing as "evil" actually exists outside of human opinion.

Which, because in classical theism there are good arguments to equate the good with God, shows the absurdity of the so called POE. The sceptic has to accept objective good for the argument to make sense, but then he is in the absurd position of suggesting the good itself is not good enough.

 

[dust1n]

Granted.

If you have the capacity to donate to the poor, but don't, are you somehow responsible for all poverty? The logic doesn't follow here.

The logic doesn't follow here either. Calling something "evil" is a value judgement, and thus, an attribution. It's a map of territory; a projection onto reality. It seems not only possible but highly probable that humans would project the label "evil" on something in spite of their being none of it by the standards of the one-god. Or any other god, for that matter (though that is probably beside the point, because outside of classical monotheism, the "problem" of evil isn't even a problem at all).

Depends on what god-concept one follows. Gods are simply what a culture or person deifies. Gods don't have to have any particular attributes until we start talking specific varieties of theism and grind into the details of theology. Gods don't have to address "evil" (which isn't even a thing in non-dualistic cultures and philosophies) in order to be gods.

Wouldn't it just depend on the omni-loving-god-concept? The argument is not that God doesn't exist, but that those qualifying factors of God cannot coexist.

 

[dust1n]

If I had the ability to help all of the poor at no expense to me or my loved ones and I chose not to, then yes I would be evil by the moral standard that I put forward, which is as follows.
Do everything in your power to help, protect, preserve, and cultivate the natural world, cultivation of knowledge, cultivation of art, and sentient beings.

So does that mean that omnipotent beings are not responsible for their actions?
Does power absolve you of responsibility?

Also consider the fact that ending the poverty by yourself would be impossible, while God could accomplish in a blink of eye if so choose to do so, without any effort at all. Also, you aren't all loving, no offense, so to have a human held to same ethical standard of human would be unfair.

 

[Super Universe]

No.
It demonstrates that revealed religion is useless from a moral perspective.
Tom

Religions have their base mostly in culture. An eye for an eye did not come from God it came from Hammurabi's laws. Ignorance of science caused ancient people to blame God for floods, fireballs from heaven-aka meteors, drought, famine, disease, birth defects and more.

God never told anyone to kill someone for violating the sabbath. The Jewish priests wrote that into law to force every Jew to act in accordance with belief. You have to realize that 99% of all ancient people could not read because they had no reason to. To the average person the written word wasn't just law, it was divine regardless of whether it was really from God or not.

Religion is not entirely useless. It gives us a history of primitive man's attempt to understand something that was far beyond his ability to comprehend. We shouldn't see the bible or any other religious book as representing God. The only thing that represents God is the universe itself.

 

[dust1n]

All of this is predicated on the assumption that such a thing as "evil" actually exists outside of human opinion.

If no evil acts exist outside human opinion, then humans wouldn't be capable of doing evil.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

Yes evil is a man made label. However you would be hard pressed to find something that was not. Hot, Cold, Pain, Love, Knowledge, Ignorance, all of these are labels. Since humans from antiquity have had similar trends throughout history with the application of these labels, it is improbable that they are (at the very least) commonalities of human rationalism.

 

[Unification]

If God is willing to destroy evil but not able to, then he is not all powerful.
If God can destroy evil but chooses not to, then he is responsible for all evil.
If God can destroy evil and chooses to, then evil cannot exist.
If God is not able to and is not willing to destroy evil, then he is not God.

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?

-Epicurus

"God" is not an individual or a Him. And if used as a "him," understand the masculine and feminine principles. Male being consciousness, and female being subconsciousness.

"God" is not out there somewhere, "God" is within where all an individual's experiences occur, within.

Love is the ongoing manifestation of "being." The manifestation and expression of "being." With love, there is no judgment.

The love that is the
ongoing manifestation of "being" is distorted through an individual consciousness who becomes self centered by the illusion of separation from their divine nature within. Fear, sickness, war, crime, hate, and other stuff happen.

We were not created to love and cherish. Created so that we could love and cherish. Emphasis is on us. We are the limited extensions of the infinite nature, and we are the vehicles through which "God" experiences and grows. We are the reason for our existence.
We create(d) ourselves.

Both polar opposites of the spectrum, light and darkness are provided so that we have the chance and opportunity to BE. Life. The opportunity to BE, experience, and live isn't good enough for many. Responsibility is on us. We create. The opportunity to experience peace and joy or suffering and misery. Heaven or hell. One will reap what is sown.

"God" didn't create good and evil. Religion and ego minds did. Two concepts the ego mind uses to judge and label things as such.

And also, we have the ability and latent potential within ourselves to destroy "evil." The "evil" that we created. I suppose that most just aren't willing because they are separated from their true inner nature.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

"God" is not an individual or a Him. And if used as a "him," understand the masculine and feminine principles. Male being consciousness, and female being subconsciousness.

"God" is not out there somewhere, "God" is within where all an individual's experiences occur, within.

Love is the ongoing manifestation of "being." The manifestation and expression of "being." With love, there is no judgment.

The love that is the
ongoing manifestation of "being" is distorted through an individual consciousness who becomes self centered by the illusion of separation from their divine nature within. Fear, sickness, war, crime, hate, and other stuff happen.

We were not created to love and cherish. Created so that we could love and cherish. Emphasis is on us. We are the limited extensions of the infinite nature, and we are the vehicles through which "God" experiences and grows. We are the reason for our existence.
We create(d) ourselves.

Both polar opposites of the spectrum, light and darkness are provided so that we have the chance and opportunity to BE. Life. The opportunity to BE, experience, and live isn't good enough for many. Responsibility is on us. We create. The opportunity to experience peace and joy or suffering and misery. Heaven or hell. One will reap what is sown.

"God" didn't create good and evil. Religion and ego minds did. Two concepts the ego mind uses to judge and label things as such.

And also, we have the ability and latent potential within ourselves to destroy "evil." The "evil" that we created. I suppose that most just aren't willing because they are separated from their true inner nature.

This is only for Monotheism, please read the title next time.

 

[Unification]

This is only for Monotheism, please read the title next time.

What's the author's definition of the label "monotheism?" "A God," "one God," "God," "God is One," or something else?

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

This is only for Monotheism, please read the title next time.

Maybe you should add "monotheistic" (better yet, Abrahamic*?) to the title then? There are some omnipotent polytheists who use a capital "g" when referring to their Gods. God can also refer to the Divine in general.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

Maybe you should add "monotheistic" (better yet, Abrahamic*?) to the title then? There are some omnipotent polytheists who use a capital "g" when referring to their Gods. God can also refer to the Divine in general.

I said omnipotent. And polytheism implies a sharing of powers.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

What's the author's definition of the label "monotheism?" "A God," "one God," "God," "God is One," or something else?

This is specifically for a singular All Powerful and All Loving God.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

I do not claim to be able to disprove other types of deity.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

I said omnipotent. And polytheism implies a sharing of powers.

Not all the time. There are polytheists who believe in multiple omnipotent Gods. Hell, you have monotheists who believe the God of Islam and Christianity are different beings, though I guess they'd be more henotheists, which would entail multiple omnipotent Gods.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

Not all the time. There are polytheists who believe in multiple omnipotent Gods. Hell, you have monotheists who believe the God of Islam and Christianity are different beings, though I guess they'd be more henotheists, which would entail multiple omnipotent Gods.

They believe they are different ideas about divinity not different beings that both exist.