How an Omnipotent and All Loving God cannot exist.

[HekaMa'atRa]

I was merely curious.

I love curiosity

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

also, I wasn't asking you, I was asking the Egyptian religionist.

Does that mean that you can only answer questions about Deism?

 

[Desert Snake]

Does that mean that you can only answer questions about Deism?

I don't have Deism listed next to religion, nor do I generally agree with every deist idea put forward. So, basically, this question/assertion doesn't make sense.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

I don't have Deism listed next to religion, nor do I generally agree with every deist idea put forward. So, basically, this question/assertion doesn't make sense.

Do you think that I agree with all agnostics?

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Number 1: In Egyptian mythology Set did not do that.
Number 2: If Christianity was true, is that not true?

There are some similarities between the Judaic concept of Satan and Set. Both are servants of God. Satan is meant to test humanity and provide meaning for them to make the right choices. Set is a God of confusion and chaos which is simply a necessary part of our universe. He's there to provide the opposite spectrum of Ma'at (truth, order, harmony), the path we should all take in life.

Though I think @q konn was talking about a different perspective about Satan, where he apparently wanted to help humanity through knowledge - but I could be wrong.

 

[Desert Snake]

There are some similarities between the Judaic concept of Satan and Set. Both are servants of God. Satan is meant to test humanity and provide meaning for them to make the right choices. Set is a God of confusion and chaos which is simply a necessary part of our universe. He's there to provide the opposite spectrum of Ma'at (truth, order, harmony), the path we should all take in life.

Though I think @q konn was talking about a different perspective about Satan, where he apparently wanted to help humanity through knowledge - but I could be wrong.

Yes, albeit hypothetical and not my position anyway.

 

[Curious George]

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

Sounds like you are playing with squares while others play with triangles and hexagons.

 

[Student of God]

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

Personally for me as a muslim your post can be answered in a number of ways.
1 Just to make things clear we as muslims believe that everything comes from 1 God, and that there are no 2 gods, one good one and one evil one. We also believe that he can do everything as long as it doesn't contradict his attributes and names and make him of a similar nature to his creation. We believe he can't for example create something that is higher than him because he is the highest. He also can't eat because 1 its established that he is needless( uncreated creator has to be needless) and because 2 it likens him to his creation.

2 Evil isn't the opposite of good or a force on its own, rather it is the lack of good. Look at it like light and darkness, you can't for example darken light by adding more darkness, all you can do is decrease the amount of light there is.

3 We muslims believe that our knowledge is only limited and that as long as we don't have the full picture, which we believe will be revealed on the day when every single human will be judged in accordance to his or her deeds we can't objectively describe something as evil. For example say a man sticks a needle in another man's body is this evil? Generally speaking we'll say yes, but imagine that man sticking the needle in the arm of the other man to cure the man of a disease, as doctors do. Is this evil? No. Alot of examples of this can be seen in what happened between Moses and al Khidr (peace be upon them) in surah al Kahf in the quran ayat 65- 82 http://quran.com/18 .Another reason for suffering might be so people can recognize moments of good, if everything was good then the word would lose its meaning.

4 Generally speaking most of the 'evil' experiences results from his creation, whom he gave a free will to use whatever power or might he or she has and to be judged by what he or she did with it. For example a man kills my mother, from an islamic perspective the man will be brought to question over his deed, while her death might have prevented her from doing x-sin and I will be rewarded for being patient because of the suffering caused by her death and it might have prevented me from doing x-sin. Regardless of whether one would have done x-sin you still get rewarded for it for being patient and regardless people should always be ready to die, if it wasn't that man something else would have killed her at that very time.

5 We believe life is a test and that in accordance to the deeds of one person he or she will be judged, so if there is never any struggle where is the test? Every struggle from a muslim POV is either a punishment for the wicked or a test for the righteous and both are good from a muslim POV if one is punished in this world one wont be punished in the latter or at the very least be punished less.

6 Regardless of how hard the calamity a person lives like what 80-something years and then either is rewarded forever or punished forever, those 80 years don't compare to an eternity and while one might complain that being punished forever isn't fair, being rewarded forever isn't fair either and it would be an injustice if a person who denied the very reason for his existence, or who did alot of sins and died without repenting( but after being punished will be rewarded) gets the same judgement as the person who did neither of those. Regardless the third person will never be able to deserve the reward he will get, though because God has the name al raheem (the merciful, more like the merciful in the hereafter while al rahman= the merciful in this world and for everyone ) and it only applies to the muslims , while we also know that he has also described himself as severe in punishment and this applies to the first 2 kinds of people.

7 Natural disasters fulfill the same role as the normal sufferings ,either a punishment or test.

8 From a muslim perspective non muslims have the worst sin, disbelief. From a muslim POV it denies the very reason for our existence here, and that is worse than murder and rape (not that those are light things), so from a muslim POV it makes sense why they would be punished like that for not believing.
.
9 Children who die from a muslim POV automatically go to paradise, regardless of their way of life (this includes the kids of atheists), so from an islamic POV this is also a form of mercy and it saves the children from what they could have done in the future(when they don't have this guarantee). We believe some people get this mercy while most don't because God knows every possible imaginable alternate reality and what they would have done in it.

10 My final point. Do you or does x-person really know what suffering is? We believe the most righteous people face the most suffering and we believe that the prophets faced the hardest suffering. Take for example the prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) lets see here 1 dad died before his birth, 2 mom died when he was six , 3 grandpa died when he was eight , 4 the uncle whom he was living with was poor so he had to spend all his time working to aid his uncle, 5 six of his seven children died in his life three in their childhood, one of those three died in his hands; 6 was being insulted and attacked (though it were mostly his followers who got abused, one of his uncles protected him, while his other uncle was his neighbor who celebrated loudly when one of muhammed(pbuh)'s children died ), 7 every other clan refused to trade with his clan for 2 years(=> mass starvation) 8 his wife (psychological support) and his uncle(social support, he was the reason Muhammed(pbuh) wasn't tortured as much as most of his followers) both died in the same year 9 islamically that uncle died as a non muslim and would reject islam on his deathbed mainly because of social pressure 10 When he had the permission to leave Makkah and entered Taïf he was rejected and pelted in rocks to the point of his sandals being stuck to his feet because of all the blood. I can go on and give more examples but you are probably bored by now and can see where this is going.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

Personally for me as a muslim your post can be answered in a number of ways.
1 Just to make things clear we as muslims believe that everything comes from 1 God, and that there are no 2 gods, one good one and one evil one. We also believe that he can do everything as long as it doesn't contradict his attributes and names and make him of a similar nature to his creation. We believe he can't for example create something that is higher than him because he is the highest. He also can't eat because 1 its established that he is needless( uncreated creator has to be needless) and because 2 it likens him to his creation.

2 Evil isn't the opposite of good or a force on its own, rather it is the lack of good. Look at it like light and darkness, you can't for example darken light by adding more darkness, all you can do is decrease the amount of light there is.

3 We muslims believe that our knowledge is only limited and that as long as we don't have the full picture, which we believe will be revealed on the day when every single human will be judged in accordance to his or her deeds we can't objectively describe something as evil. For example say a man sticks a needle in another man's body is this evil? Generally speaking we'll say yes, but imagine that man sticking the needle in the arm of the other man to cure the man of a disease, as doctors do. Is this evil? No. Alot of examples of this can be seen in what happened between Moses and al Khidr (peace be upon them) in surah al Kahf in the quran ayat 65- 82 http://quran.com/18 .Another reason for suffering might be so people can recognize moments of good, if everything was good then the word would lose its meaning.

4 Generally speaking most of the 'evil' experiences results from his creation, whom he gave a free will to use whatever power or might he or she has and to be judged by what he or she did with it. For example a man kills my mother, from an islamic perspective the man will be brought to question over his deed, while her death might have prevented her from doing x-sin and I will be rewarded for being patient because of the suffering caused by her death and it might have prevented me from doing x-sin. Regardless of whether one would have done x-sin you still get rewarded for it for being patient and regardless people should always be ready to die, if it wasn't that man something else would have killed her at that very time.

5 We believe life is a test and that in accordance to the deeds of one person he or she will be judged, so if there is never any struggle where is the test? Every struggle from a muslim POV is either a punishment for the wicked or a test for the righteous and both are good from a muslim POV if one is punished in this world one wont be punished in the latter or at the very least be punished less.

6 Regardless of how hard the calamity a person lives like what 80-something years and then either is rewarded forever or punished forever, those 80 years don't compare to an eternity and while one might complain that being punished forever isn't fair, being rewarded forever isn't fair either and it would be an injustice if a person who denied the very reason for his existence, or who did alot of sins and died without repenting( but after being punished will be rewarded) gets the same judgement as the person who did neither of those. Regardless the third person will never be able to deserve the reward he will get, though because God has the name al raheem (the merciful, more like the merciful in the hereafter while al rahman= the merciful in this world and for everyone ) and it only applies to the muslims , while we also know that he has also described himself as severe in punishment and this applies to the first 2 kinds of people.

7 Natural disasters fulfill the same role as the normal sufferings ,either a punishment or test.

8 From a muslim perspective non muslims have the worst sin, disbelief. From a muslim POV it denies the very reason for our existence here, and that is worse than murder and rape (not that those are light things), so from a muslim POV it makes sense why they would be punished like that for not believing.
.
9 Children who die from a muslim POV automatically go to paradise, regardless of their way of life (this includes the kids of atheists), so from an islamic POV this is also a form of mercy and it saves the children from what they could have done in the future(when they don't have this guarantee). We believe some people get this mercy while most don't because God knows every possible imaginable alternate reality and what they would have done in it.

10 My final point. Do you or does x-person really know what suffering is? We believe the most righteous people face the most suffering and we believe that the prophets faced the hardest suffering. Take for example the prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) lets see here 1 dad died before his birth, 2 mom died when he was six , 3 grandpa died when he was eight , 4 the uncle whom he was living with was poor so he had to spend all his time working to aid his uncle, 5 six of his seven children died in his life three in their childhood, one of those three died in his hands; 6 was being insulted and attacked (though it were mostly his followers who got abused, one of his uncles protected him, while his other uncle was his neighbor who celebrated loudly when one of muhammed(pbuh)'s children died ), 7 every other clan refused to trade with his clan for 2 years(=> mass starvation) 8 his wife (psychological support) and his uncle(social support, he was the reason Muhammed(pbuh) wasn't tortured as much as most of his followers) both died in the same year 9 islamically that uncle died as a non muslim and would reject islam on his deathbed mainly because of social pressure 10 When he had the permission to leave Makkah and entered Taïf he was rejected and pelted in rocks to the point of his sandals being stuck to his feet because of all the blood. I can go on and give more examples but you are probably bored by now and can see where this is going.

Your entire argument relies off of the Koran correct?

 

[Shad]

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?

Corporeal forms are not required if the spiritual world is possible. The only defeater is to put forward there is no spiritual world but this renders any religion with such a world untenable.

Whether this world is good or not all depends on if you believe a creator is behind everything as this shifts natural into a mechanic designed by the creator thus is responsible for the creation

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Corporeal forms are not required if the spiritual world is possible. The only defeater is to put forward there is no spiritual world but this renders any religion with such a world untenable.

Whether this world is good or not all depends on if you believe a creator is behind everything as this shifts natural into a mechanic designed by the creator thus is responsible for the creation

Whether corporeal forms are necessary depends upon one's metaphysics. For the Platonist, for example, corporeal forms are possibilities inherent in the existence of Forms - they are the separability of the possibilities of the Forms.

Whether this world is good depends upon, for a start, one's understanding of being. The Scholastics argue, for example, for the transcendentals that show being and goodness are convertible. The world so far as it is exists is good, therefore.

 

[Shad]

Whether corporeal forms are necessary depends upon one's metaphysics. For the Platonic, for example, corporeal forms are possibilities inherent in the existence of Forms - they are the separability of the possibilities of the Forms.

I agree. Like I said it depends on the view of reality one has.

Whether this world is good depends upon, for a start, one's understanding of being. The Scholastics argue, for example, for the transcendentals that show being and goodness are convertible. The world so far as it is exists is good, therefore.

Which is entirely dependent on the point you made above. If one does not believe goodness as a property rather than a value and judgement assessment of people the argument has no merit. As a student of history I see a lot of "good" as anything but. I see a lot of religion proclaiming "goodness" then doing the exact opposite. I see people making excuses for their god's immoral acts, divine command theory. I also hesitate to assign goodness to nature which includes humans, other animals, organism and natural mechanics.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I am not sure what you are referring to. Obviously, the so called POE relies on the existence of an objective good, at least for the sake of argument.

 

[Glaurung]

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

Do you really think this argument actually convinces anyone who isn't already inclined against classical theism?

If God is willing to destroy evil but not able to, then he is not all powerful.

The first thing to realise is that evil has no ontological existence in the Christian worldview. In other words, evil does not exist in of itself as a thing. Evil is nothing more than that which is contrary to the will of God.

If God can destroy evil but chooses not to, then he is responsible for all evil.

Responsible only insofar as all that exists depends on God for its existence. Evil is the result of the moral freedom given to creatures, and he permits the misuse of moral freedom for his own purposes.

If God can destroy evil and chooses to, then evil cannot exist.

It technically doesn't, at least not as a thing in of itself. All creatures no matter how morally corrupt are in of themselves good by their created nature. God allows our freedom and therefore our moral corruption.

If God is not able to and is not willing to destroy evil, then he is not God

Or it could be that you just lack the bigger picture. God has already won, we're just here to play out our small part in the grand scheme of history. You're trying to judge a cosmic painting, but as of this moment you're only privy to see a small spec on the bottom corner.

 

[David M]

If you read the bible God is a jealous violent narcissist.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

Do you really think this argument actually convinces anyone who isn't already inclined against classical theism?


The first thing to realise is that evil has no ontological existence in the Christian worldview. In other words, evil does not exist in of itself as a thing. Evil is nothing more than that which is contrary to the will of God.


Responsible only insofar as all that exists depends on God for its existence. Evil is the result of the moral freedom given to creatures, and he permits the misuse of moral freedom for his own purposes.


It technically doesn't, at least not as a thing in of itself. All creatures no matter how morally corrupt are in of themselves good by their created nature. God allows our freedom and therefore our moral corruption.


Or it could be that you just lack the bigger picture. God has already won, we're just here to play out our small part in the grand scheme of history. You're trying to judge a cosmic painting, but as of this moment you're only privy to see a small spec on the bottom corner.

Number 1: If evil exists due to free-will then does heaven have no free-will?
Number 2: What do you mean by classical theism?

 

[columbus]

Number 1: If evil exists due to free-will then does heaven have no free-will?
Number 2: What do you mean by classical theism?

As for classical theism, that would describe henotheistic polytheism to me. Probably most abrahamic people would disagree

But your first is more interesting to me.
I don't believe free will exists except as a strong illusion created by our limited ability to understand our own motives. But even if it did, what possible reason would anyone have for doing anything "sinful" or harmful in Heaven? You know who God is and what is best for you to do under any circumstances. You lack for nothing and are secure in that for eternity. People do evil things because they don't understand what is really in their own best interests(especially if there is a judgement day).
Someone in Heaven would no more be free to sin than you are to saw your own foot off with a rusty hacksaw.

Tom

 

[Willamena]

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

That's easy, even for an atheist. If you consider loving to entail some particular obligation on behalf of the lover, then yes, God must intervene.

It's also sick.

 

[Glaurung]

Number 1: If evil exists due to free-will then does heaven have no free-will?

Heaven retains free-will, but beings confirmed in grace become utterly aligned with God. Free will doesn't cause sin, it's the mechanism that allows the possibility of sin when unconfirmed in the presence of God. The entire point of this life is to choose your eternity (either with God, or against him) which entails the ability to reject him hence the existence of evil. This life is but a short moral test, of course it's not going to be easy (God never made any such promise) but ultimately, the problems of this world don't really mean all too much in the grand scheme of eternity. This world will be swept away when God sees fit.

Number 2: What do you mean by classical theism?

Classical theism is the monotheistic belief in a transcendent, personal and omnipotent creator as elucidated by the Abrahamic traditions.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

Heaven retains free-will, but beings confirmed in grace become utterly aligned with God. Free will doesn't cause sin, it's the mechanism that allows the possibility of sin when unconfirmed in the presence of God. The entire point of this life is to choose your eternity (either with God, or against him) which entails the ability to reject him hence the existence of evil. This life is but a short moral test, of course it's not going to be easy (God never made any such promise) but ultimately, the problems of this world don't really mean all too much in the grand scheme of eternity. This world will be swept away when God sees fit.

So if you do not believe in an illogical being you deserved to be tortured?


Classical theism is the monotheistic belief in a transcendent, personal and omnipotent creator as elucidated by the Abrahamic traditions.

How is that classic? Thousands of Pagan religions existed before that concept ever did.