Is this view refutable?

[nazz]

I've been debating some Christians in another forum about the problem of evil. I have stated it is not possible for a deity to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, AND allow suffering. I think that is a given so I don't want to debate that. However there is one Christian who says he believes God is omnibenevolent but not omnipotent and that God allows suffering for reason we don't and perhaps cannot understand. I don't see a way to refute that as a possibility. Does anyone else see any possible refutation?

Also if anyone else takes this view I would ask why you might believe it to be true.

 

[Jainarayan]

When I was Christian,as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, I was taught that because God gave mankind free will, for the most part God stepped back from interference in man's affairs. That is, God does not cause suffering or evil. God has limited himself in what he will intervene in. Does that mean God never works miracles? No, there are exceptions which to me, at the risk of being irreverent, seem self-serving for God. That is, people will "ooh!" and"ahh!" at a perceived miracle, and praise God to the high heavens (pun intended).

 

[nazz]

When I was Christian,as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, I was taught that because God gave mankind free will, for the most part God stepped back from interference in man's affairs. That is, God does not cause suffering or evil. God has limited himself in what he will intervene in. Does that mean God never works miracles? No, there are exceptions which to me, at the risk of being irreverent, seem self-serving for God. That is, people will "ooh!" and"ahh!" at a perceived miracle, and praise God to the high heavens (pun intended).

Free will cannot account for all suffering. But that's another debate.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

I've been debating some Christians in another forum about the problem of evil. I have stated it is not possible for a deity to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, AND allow suffering. I think that is a given so I don't want to debate that. However there is one Christian who says he believes God is omnibenevolent but not omnipotent and that God allows suffering for reason we don't and perhaps cannot understand. I don't see a way to refute that as a possibility. Does anyone else see any possible refutation?

Also if anyone else takes this view I would ask why you might believe it to be true.

One argument I have heard on this omnipotent thing is that the word should actually be understood to mean all possible power, seeing as power is something measured. It does not necessarily mean boundless power. If one has all the power that is able to be had, its omnipotence.

 

[Jainarayan]

No, not all but to a large extent... remember, Adam and Eve (and I'm speaking in mythological terms in all this, not as a believer) ate the forbidden fruit of their own free will, which had its consequences ("consequences, schmonsequenses!" - Daffy Duck ). On second thought, God has meddled in the affairs of men quite a bit. But if he does indeed permit evil and suffering to run rampant... well, I should stop there.

 

[nazz]

One argument I have heard on this omnipotent thing is that the word should actually be understood to mean all possible power, seeing as power is something measured. It does not necessarily mean boundless power. If one has all the power that is able to be had, its omnipotence.

Understood but that is not what I am asking about

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Understood but that is not what I am asking about

It would solve the problem of evil if one said god was omnipotent, but that didn't include the power it would take to end suffering.

 

[nazz]

It would solve the problem of evil if one said god was omnipotent, but that didn't include the power it would take to end suffering.

I think even a modified, limited view of omnipotence would include the power to end all suffering. Otherwise I don't think you could call it omnipotence at all.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

I think even a modified, limited view of omnipotence would include the power to end all suffering. Otherwise I don't think you could call it omnipotence at all.

Only assuming that omnipotence by the definition I gave (all possible power) included enough power to end suffering.

 

[nazz]

Only assuming that omnipotence by the definition I gave (all possible power) included enough power to end suffering.

As I say I think it would have to.

anyway, the guy I was debating does not believe in omnipotence so it's a moot point.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However there is one Christian who says he believes God is omnibenevolent but not omnipotent and that God allows suffering for reason we don't and perhaps cannot understand.

Something is not quite right here. To say that God allows evil is to suggest that God could disallow evil at which point any further discussion of God's omnipotence is superfluous.

 

[nazz]

Something is not quite right here. To say that God allows evil is to suggest that God could disallow evil at which point any further discussion of God's omnipotence is superfluous.

He is saying that even though God is not omnipotent God does have control over evil.

 

[Cephus]

I would never give assent to that position. If God's motives are unknown or unknowable to us, then we have no obligation to respect God and his motives. Respect is earned and if God is going to act like a jerk, even if he claims to have a good reason to do so, then we've got no obligation whatsoever to bow down to this immoral monster.

 

[Cephus]

Something is not quite right here. To say that God allows evil is to suggest that God could disallow evil at which point any further discussion of God's omnipotence is superfluous.

Clearly if you believe God created everything, he opted to create evil. He didn't have to do so, so either he didn't create everything and is thus not omnipotent, or he chose to do so for reasons unknown and is not omnibenevolent. You can't really have it both ways.

 

[Etritonakin]

God could have prevented suffering by simply not creating the angels, man, etc.

God could also have programmed beings to avoid certain behaviors.

Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

The point of the above is that God could very easily create beings which were obedient as Abraham. There is a reason individuals must bring forth those fruits themselves -and that has to do with what God is accomplishing.

God explains in great detail throughout the bible why he has allowed the present situation. I'll post scriptures later.

 

[JerryL]

I've been debating some Christians in another forum about the problem of evil. I have stated it is not possible for a deity to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, AND allow suffering. I think that is a given so I don't want to debate that. However there is one Christian who says he believes God is omnibenevolent but not omnipotent and that God allows suffering for reason we don't and perhaps cannot understand. I don't see a way to refute that as a possibility. Does anyone else see any possible refutation?

Also if anyone else takes this view I would ask why you might believe it to be true.

Generally the solution proffered by Christians is to redefine "benevolent". There's nothing that can be done about that (other than perhaps to show that the Christian in question doesn't honestly hold the belief they claim), because it's arbitrary.

 

[Orbit]

I've been debating some Christians in another forum about the problem of evil. I have stated it is not possible for a deity to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, AND allow suffering. I think that is a given so I don't want to debate that. However there is one Christian who says he believes God is omnibenevolent but not omnipotent and that God allows suffering for reason we don't and perhaps cannot understand. I don't see a way to refute that as a possibility. Does anyone else see any possible refutation?

Also if anyone else takes this view I would ask why you might believe it to be true.

If God is not omnipotent, the issue is that God CAN"T prevent suffering. Why then, do we call him God?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've been debating some Christians in another forum about the problem of evil. I have stated it is not possible for a deity to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, AND allow suffering. I think that is a given so I don't want to debate that. However there is one Christian who says he believes God is omnibenevolent but not omnipotent and that God allows suffering for reason we don't and perhaps cannot understand. I don't see a way to refute that as a possibility. Does anyone else see any possible refutation?

Also if anyone else takes this view I would ask why you might believe it to be true.

I've heard a similar argument. Not often, but I've heard it.
No, I don't think it's easily refuted, but a couple of additional points;

1) Inability to refute it assumes there is consistency. Claiming a lack of omnipotence is one thing, but there should be some coherence between arguments showing what power God DOES have, and what he does not. It would strike me as strange, for example, if he argued on the one hand that God created all matter, and on the other hand said that God has no ability to control any aspect of creation, like animal design. But, his argument may FURTHER include non-intervention in evolution, or some such. That would raise some questions, to my mind, but would again make it difficult to refute.

2) Why do you feel the need/desire to refute it? I can't refute Deism, for example, but don't feel any less an atheist for all that. It's quite easy to design a God which can't be refuted.

 

[Ingledsva]

When I was Christian,as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, I was taught that because God gave mankind free will, for the most part God stepped back from interference in man's affairs. That is, God does not cause suffering or evil. God has limited himself in what he will intervene in. Does that mean God never works miracles? No, there are exceptions which to me, at the risk of being irreverent, seem self-serving for God. That is, people will "ooh!" and"ahh!" at a perceived miracle, and praise God to the high heavens (pun intended).

Yes indeed! In fact The Exodus story has YHVH actually saying he is NOT going to let Pharaoh let the people go - SO THAT HE CAN DO HIS SPECIAL EFFECTS.

So - he causes all the plagues, and then murders all the first born (because Pharaoh wouldn't let them go,) - when in reality he was preventing Pharaoh from letting them go.

Torture and Murder for the express purpose of showing off!

It is these stories that proved to me that the Bible is just the patriarchal ramblings of men.


*

 

[Cephus]

2) Why do you feel the need/desire to refute it? I can't refute Deism, for example, but don't feel any less an atheist for all that. It's quite easy to design a God which can't be refuted.

There aren't a lot of deists out there going door to door trying to convert people either, nor are there deists out trying to block gay marriage, trying to shove their beliefs down people's throats or trying to get them mandated by law. If there were, more atheists would be out trying to refute deism. And while you're right, it's easy to design a god that can't be refuted, it can't be defended either. No gods can. The fact that there is no objective evidence for any gods is sufficient reason for a rational person to reject belief in all of them. That includes deistic gods.