Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[an anarchist]

So, supposedly there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. (Not according to me, I'm thinking more Abrahamics)

Well, this God supposedly does not want man to suffer. Yet there is suffering. So is He not omnipotent? Or is He not omnibenevolent? It appears to me this God needs some help in ending suffering for man!

Perhaps this God does not really care if we suffer. Perhaps He cannot completely intervene on His own. Perhaps this type of omnimax God is not really there. For how can He, given the state of the world?

I believe in an omnipotent force. I think it is not a God with a personality. It is not benevolent. So my idea of the most powerful force, "God", stands up to the problem of evil; it has no personality, so how can it claim benevolence? It is power itself.

Isn't the Problem of Evil great? It's been a while since I've seen it explored here and it's on my mind, so here is this thread.

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

One is that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist, due to the current state of the world.

Isn't the problem of evil sufficient by itself to disprove the existence of an omnimax God? I think so. And, if that isn't enough, just read the Old Testament and ask yourself if a Omnibenevolent god can do all the things Yahweh does.

 

[Koldo]

So, supposedly there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. (Not according to me, I'm thinking more Abrahamics)

Well, this God supposedly does not want man to suffer. Yet there is suffering. So is He not omnipotent? Or is He not omnibenevolent? It appears to me this God needs some help in ending suffering for man!

Perhaps this God does not really care if we suffer. Perhaps He cannot completely intervene on His own. Perhaps this type of omnimax God is not really there. For how can He, given the state of the world?

I believe in an omnipotent force. I think it is not a God with a personality. It is not benevolent. So my idea of the most powerful force, "God", stands up to the problem of evil; it has no personality, so how can it claim benevolence? It is power itself.

Isn't the Problem of Evil great? It's been a while since I've seen it explored here and it's on my mind, so here is this thread.

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

One is that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist, due to the current state of the world.

Isn't the problem of evil sufficient by itself to disprove the existence of an omnimax God? I think so. And, if that isn't enough, just read the Old Testament and ask yourself if a Omnibenevolent god can do all the things Yahweh does.

As much as the Problem of Evil interests me, I have a really hard time trying to figure out how one can fully read the Old Testament and reach the conclusion the Abrahamic God is omnibenevolent.

 

[MikeF]

So, supposedly there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. (Not according to me, I'm thinking more Abrahamics)

Well, this God supposedly does not want man to suffer. Yet there is suffering. So is He not omnipotent? Or is He not omnibenevolent? It appears to me this God needs some help in ending suffering for man!

Perhaps this God does not really care if we suffer. Perhaps He cannot completely intervene on His own. Perhaps this type of omnimax God is not really there. For how can He, given the state of the world?

I believe in an omnipotent force. I think it is not a God with a personality. It is not benevolent. So my idea of the most powerful force, "God", stands up to the problem of evil; it has no personality, so how can it claim benevolence? It is power itself.

Isn't the Problem of Evil great? It's been a while since I've seen it explored here and it's on my mind, so here is this thread.

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

One is that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist, due to the current state of the world.

Isn't the problem of evil sufficient by itself to disprove the existence of an omnimax God? I think so. And, if that isn't enough, just read the Old Testament and ask yourself if a Omnibenevolent god can do all the things Yahweh does.

What does omnipotence mean to you? If the omnipotence just *is*, without intent, how is that omnipotence exercised or displayed?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So, supposedly there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. (Not according to me, I'm thinking more Abrahamics)

Well, this God supposedly does not want man to suffer. Yet there is suffering. So is He not omnipotent? Or is He not omnibenevolent? It appears to me this God needs some help in ending suffering for man!

Perhaps this God does not really care if we suffer. Perhaps He cannot completely intervene on His own. Perhaps this type of omnimax God is not really there. For how can He, given the state of the world?

I believe in an omnipotent force. I think it is not a God with a personality. It is not benevolent. So my idea of the most powerful force, "God", stands up to the problem of evil; it has no personality, so how can it claim benevolence? It is power itself.

Isn't the Problem of Evil great? It's been a while since I've seen it explored here and it's on my mind, so here is this thread.

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

One is that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist, due to the current state of the world.

Isn't the problem of evil sufficient by itself to disprove the existence of an omnimax God? I think so. And, if that isn't enough, just read the Old Testament and ask yourself if a Omnibenevolent god can do all the things Yahweh does.

The problem of evil does not say anything about the existence of a god. It does eliminate the possibility of a good god. If god exists it cannot be good.

 

[1213]

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

People wanted to know evil in the beginning. That is why people were expelled to this first death where we can learn what evil truly means. Luckily this is just a short lesson and those who become righteous, can go back to life with God. That is why I don't think evil is a problem, it is just something that we learn to know in this "Matrix".

 

[Koldo]

People wanted to know evil in the beginning.

Evidence? Source?

That is why people were expelled to this first death where we can learn what evil truly means. Luckily this is just a short lesson and those who become righteous, can go back to life with God. That is why I don't think evil is a problem, it is just something that we learn to know in this "Matrix".

This doesn't address the problem of evil. It doesn't explain how this lesson, as you are calling it, is compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People wanted to know evil in the beginning. That is why people were expelled to this first death where we can learn what evil truly means. Luckily this is just a short lesson and those who become righteous, can go back to life with God. That is why I don't think evil is a problem, it is just something that we learn to know in this "Matrix".

The problem is that if God is causation of everything as everything then no matter how many steps of causation you do through then God is the primary causation of evil. God has have created evil for us to know it or God hasn't created evil and thus God hasn't created everything.

 

[ratiocinator]

People wanted to know evil in the beginning.

Even if there was the slightest glimmer of truth in this myth, that doesn't justify exposing everybody else to it from that point on. Such an act by itself would make such a god unjust and unfair.

 

[Koldo]

Even if there was the slightest glimmer of truth in this myth, that doesn't justify exposing everybody else to it from that point on. Such an act by itself would make such a god unjust and unfair.

I am legit afraid that some of our fellow posters might be or become parents someday. What would a good parent do if his child wanted to touch a hot stove? Obviously letting the child touch it would be the proper thing to do, right... right?

 

[dybmh]

Isn't the Problem of Evil great?

Yes. Great and terrible.

Isn't the problem of evil sufficient by itself to disprove the existence of an omnimax God?

No. The problem with discussing it though, is that it is extremely insensitive to those who are suffering, those who have suffered, and to those who will suffer in the future.

 

[dybmh]

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

That evil can be directed into something good.

 

[dybmh]

Even if there was the slightest glimmer of truth in this myth, that doesn't justify exposing everybody else to it from that point on. Such an act by itself would make such a god unjust and unfair.

Unless it is necessary for us to exist. If the choice is life mixed with suffering or no life at all, what would you choose?

Essentially you are asking what is fair and just about suffering. It is fair and just if it is the price of admission.

 

[dybmh]

I am legit afraid that some of our fellow posters might be or become parents someday. What would a good parent do if his child wanted to touch a hot stove? Obviously letting the child touch it would be the proper thing to do, right... right?

That is an excellent point. I am a parent, but it doesn't quite work if the child is immortal. Then the proper analogy is, when a child is learning to walk, it's important to let them fall. There's also the famous ( somewhat famous ) moth analogy. You cannot help a moth out of its coccoon, or supposedly it will never survive.

If the child is immortal, then the burn from the hot stove, is just like a bump and scrape. It's temporary, and it heals.

 

[an anarchist]

What does omnipotence mean to you? If the omnipotence just *is*, without intent, how is that omnipotence exercised or displayed?

To me, I think it is infinite power.
I believe this infinite power, which I call "Infinite Intelligence" is the power source of consciousness and any possible deity. So, a benevloent deity, let's say a "god" would in fact be lesser than infinite intelligence. Because that benevolent god derives it's power from Infinite Intelligence.
So to answer your question, the omnipotence in my theory is displayed by the unlimited possibility for good and evil. It is exercised by powering all of consciousness.

 

[an anarchist]

Unless it is necessary for us to exist. If the choice is life mixed with suffering or no life at all, what would you choose?

I choose the third option: life with no suffering.

Perhaps suffering and evil is a necessary part of the equation, when thinking about current existence. But what if we can transcend into a higher existence, one where suffering is not necessary?

Ok I better stop before I just start spinning my personal theology instead of focusing on the PoE :^]

 

[dybmh]

I choose the third option: life with no suffering.

If you are immortal, and you cannot remember all the details, then you may have volunteered for this ordeal.

Perhaps suffering and evil is a necessary part of the equation, when thinking about current existence. But what if we can transcend into a higher existence, one where suffering is not necessary?

Yes, if you are immortal. And that's precisely what I am arguing. IF. Big IF.

Ok I better stop before I just start spinning my personal theology instead of focusing on the PoE :^]

Why stop? You're solving the problem. It's great and terrible, isn't it?

 

[an anarchist]

No. The problem with discussing it though, is that it is extremely insensitive to those who are suffering, those who have suffered, and to those who will suffer in the future.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Jimmy]

Evils just a symbol for darkness with nothing. No planets stars etc. god fills it with life which is good. Might not be perfect but it’s pretty good

 

[dybmh]

Can you elaborate?

Sure. The idea is, as my daughter says, "Everything happens for a reason." So if someone has suffered greatly, or is suffering, then I'm saying that the suffering is needed. Further, I'm saying that they volunteered for this, they consented to it, and cannot remember. That's pretty awful.

 

[an anarchist]

Sure. The idea is, as my daughter says, "Everything happens for a reason." So if someone has suffered greatly, or is suffering, then I'm saying that the suffering is needed. Further, I'm saying that they volunteered for this, they consented to it, and cannot remember. That's pretty awful.

I say, suffering doesn't happen for a reason, since it is possible to end it collectively. We are pointlessly suffering. Well, maybe if we suffer enough people will start considering the idea that suffering is not inevitable... Hey there's a thought anyways maybe that's the only point of suffering, to tire people of it.