Omniscience is impossible.

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I've read enough to know there is no point in reading further.
If you change your mind about truth seeking and/or morality, let me know.

Fat chance bub.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

In a formal system of reasoning, that is true. In real life, however, contradictory statements can, in fact, both be true (to the extent that we can approximate truth, anyway). Is he who hesitates lost, or should one look before they leap? If a few drops of water precipitated from the water vapor over some guy's yard in Chicago one day--but nowhere else in the city--did it rain in Chicago that day? I think that both the guy who felt a few drops in his yard and says "yes" and the guy who reads the weather report and says "no" are justified in their contradictory claims.

That said, arguments about God are almost never argued from a "real world" experiential perspective; they are pretty much limited by nature to formal methods of reasoning, and as such, we can agree that contradictory statements cannot both be true.



I don't know that Biblical contradictions "cancel each other out"; they just demonstrate that the Bible is not all literally true. BOTH contradictory claims cannot be true, but one can be true and the other false--contradiction does not imply that both claims are false.



I do not believe that is the case--I don't believe there are ANY Bible verses that "prove" that God is not omnibenevolent. Now, there are Bible verses that prove that God is the author of--is responsible for--everything in creation, both that which we call "good" and that which we call "evil." In fact, the Bible states this explicitly:

"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things." --Isaiah 45:7

But this just proves that a universe that contains BOTH good and evil is preferable--better--to a universe that contains neither--and this also addresses the "Problem of Evil" of which you display the Epicurean version in your signature. To formalize the argument:

1) An omnibenevolent God would want to create the best of all possible universes.
2) An omniscient God would know how to create the best of all possible universes.
3) An omnipotent God would have the power to create the best of all possible universes.
4) If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God exists, we are logically forced to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes.

That which we call evil exists, therefore, any evil we observe must be only that amount of evil that is necessary to the best of all possible universes. Why would any evil be necessary to the best of all possible universes? Two reasons--both because of our own interpretation of evil, and because good could not exist except in contrast to its negation.

In the first case, I would think that most would agree that creating an Earth capable of supporting life as we know it is a "good" thing for God to have done. But the consequences of a planet that has the kind of atmosphere that can sustain life as we know it mean that from time to time, a bunch of babies and puppies are going to drown in a hurricane, or people may have everything they own flushed away by a tsunami or leveled by a tornado or earthquake, struck by lightning, etc. Does that prove that God is "evil" because he created Earth with the kind of an atmosphere that can do things that affect humans adversely? Of course not. So there's an awful lot of "evil" in the world that is just a matter of our own perspective--it's "evil" only because of how it affects us as humans.

The second case is just a matter of logic. Fish don't know they live in water, because they don't have anything to compare it to. We would not know what darkness was if there was no light to compare it to--we wouldn't even have a word for "dark" because there would be nothing that is NOT dark to which we would need to contrast darkness. I could tell you that everything in the universe is "begour," but I could not rationally explain to you what "begour" is, because there is nothing that is NOT begour to compare it to.

An omnibenevolent God would want us to know what goodness is, so He would create evil for us to contrast it with. He would only make us put up with evil for a few moments, in the grand scheme of things, before allowing us to experience eternity with only goodness and no evil--but those few moments are necessary to gain an appreciation for goodness versus evil, pleasure versus suffering, etc.

So the fact that God does things one might call "bad" is not proof that He is not omnibenevolent, because such isolated individual acts are not contradictory to, nor inconsistent with, an overall benevolence--kind of like how brief changes in weather are not necessarily indicative of climate change. Just because it's snowing now doesn't mean that the Earth isn't warming overall.

An omnibenevolent God would create the best of all possible universes, and we have no way of showing that our universe, with all of its good and evil, is not as good as it could possibly be.



Agreed. The overwhelming scriptural support is for God being in control of everything. I would never argue in favor of free will. In fact, if God was NOT in control of everything, it would be much harder to make the argument that creating the best of all possible universes is even possible--since God could not account for the free actions of his creatures mucking things up. He would be a very impotent "god" indeed.



See above. If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God exists, then we live in the best of all possible universes, with the least amount of genocide and injustice possible. If God were NOT good, then it's quite possible we wouldn't be able to point to things like THE Holocaust, or THE Trail of Tears, or what have you, as being extreme examples of how humans should not behave--things like that could be commonplace, normal everyday life, instead of instructive anomalies.

Finally, if you want to complain that God created some for destruction and some for salvation, I can only say that God has anticipated your objection (caused it, really), and has addressed it in Romans 9:10-21.

"And not only that, but this too: Rebecca conceived [two sons under exactly the same circumstances] by our forefather Isaac, and the children were yet unborn and had so far done nothing either good or evil. Even so, in order further to carry out God's purpose of selection (election, choice), which depends not on works or what men can do, but on Him Who calls [them], it was said to her that the elder [son] should serve the younger [son]. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated (held in relative disregard in comparison with My feeling for Jacob). What shall we conclude then? Is there injustice upon God's part? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion (pity) on whom I will have compassion. So then [God's gift] is not a question of human will and human effort, but of God's mercy. [It depends not on one's own willingness nor on his strenuous exertion as in running a race, but on God's having mercy on him.] For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, I have raised you up for this very purpose of displaying My power in [dealing with] you, so that My name may be proclaimed the whole world over. So then He has mercy on whomever He wills (chooses) and He hardens (makes stubborn and unyielding the heart of) whomever He wills. You will say to me, Why then does He still find fault and blame us [for sinning]? For who can resist and withstand His will? But who are you, a mere man, to criticize and contradict and answer back to God? Will what is formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same mass (lump) one vessel for beauty and distinction and honorable use, and another for menial or ignoble and dishonorable use?" (Amplified Bible)

"The Lord has made everything [to accommodate itself and contribute] to its own end and His own purpose--even the wicked [are fitted for their role] for the day of calamity and evil." --Proverbs 16:4 (Amplified Bible)

Evil has its place, even in the best of all possible universes, and it is authored by God, but it is does not constitute sufficient proof that God is not omnibenevolent, since omnibenevolence can best be served by creating both good and evil, rather than by allowing neither.

I want to concentrate on the following logical fallacy:

1) An omnibenevolent God would want to create the best of all possible universes.
2) An omniscient God would know how to create the best of all possible universes.
3) An omnipotent God would have the power to create the best of all possible universes.
4) If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God exists, we are logically forced to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes.

The fallacy here? Is assumption #1. That has not been established, and indeed-- the ugly behaviors of the bible's god is anything BUT good. Evil is far more accurate.

#2 is seemingly valid-- but looking at the universe? Proves that god is evil-- if it exists.

Or? God cannot possibly BE all-knowing-- because it does not know how to create a universe without evil in it. If I can imagine it? It could be possible-- and this is a bit of knowledge that your "god" does not know!

#3 This could be the fallacy that unwinds the problems with #1 and #2-- it could be that god is NOT all powerful after all, for a Failure To Create A Good World For Humans.

#4 is a leap without proofs. See above.

A much more likely scenario, presuming god is real? #1 is false, god is both good AND evil-- like humans.

#2 is false-- there are a LOT of things god doesn't know-- how to make a universe without EVIL, for example...

#3 then becomes false as well-- without the needed knowledge to create a universe without evil, even if it had all the power? THERE IS SOMETHING IT CANNOT DO: create an evil-free universe. So #3 also false.

#4 false conclusion. See above.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Let's do that.

1. BibleGod is rationally impossible, because He is omnipotent but He cannot lie.

Chapter and verse, please?

I'm probably going to be waiting for a while, because not only does such a statement not exist in the Bible, but it's not even rationally correct. Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do anything whatsoever; it means only that God can do anything that can be done with power. Some things just cannot be done, with ANY amount of power, such as making a triangle with four sides or introducing me to a married bachelor. God violating His own nature is a logical impossibility, and cannot be done with any amount of power, since by doing so, He could not be God.

2. BibleGod is insane, because He designs people to think one way, then orders them to think another, then punishes them for not thinking what he never designed them to think.

Chapter and verse, please?

I'm probably in for another long wait here, too. There's nothing in the Bible that says God orders anyone to do anything other than that which they were created to do. There's also no evidence that God punishes anyone for anything. He does rescue some from death, but death is just the natural outcome of life--it's not a "punishment." And people are not judged by what they think, but by what they were created to do (the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, and the account of judgement in Revelation 20:13).

3. Unjust and evil relative to His creation

Chapter and verse, please?

The resolution of the Problem of Evil applies here, so don't just quote some isolated incident that you call evil and try to pass it off as proof that the Bible says that God is unjust and evil relative to His creation. I want to see where the Bible says that specifically, if you are going to call Him "BibleGod." Otherwise, it's just "CaryGod" or "BobGod" because it's not based on the Bible, it's based on your interpretation of it.

a. rewards/punishes according to what is believed rather than moral/immoral actions

Chapter and verse, please?

To elaborate on the passages cited above, the only difference between the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 is what they did or didn't DO--it had nothing to do with what they believed. Revelation 20:13 saus that "each person was judged according to what they had done"--again, nothing to do with beliefs.

Matthew 7:21-23 states:

"“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

So belief has nothing to do with it. Finally, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this; to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." --James 1:27 Moral action, not belief, is the foundation for religion.

---b. punishes far more than offenses warrant

Chapter and verse, please?

Again, nobody is getting "punished" for anything. If you weren't created for salvation, your body dies in the first death and your soul dies in the second death ("The lake of fire is the second death." --Revelation 20:14) If you were created for salvation, then you avoid the second death and live forever in the presence of God. Life either runs its natural course for you, and then you're gone, or you can be supernaturally saved--but there's no punishment for anything.

We ask for proof, and you quote the bible at us?

Oh well. Snippets of carefully cherry-picked bible isn't very convincing.

I suppose I could look up verses that support what I understand of the very ugly bible-- but I don't think I'll bother.

I do know what bible-pushers tell me about it's god, and OMNIMAX is always #1 on the list.

"All Good" as another.

Both are provably false, of course. But hey... what can you do?

You Can Lead A Theist To Knowledge, but you Cannot Force Him To Think.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes, you being an atheist is part of God's perfect plan. In your weakness His power is perfected. Rejoice!

Indeed, yes. And I would appreciate it if theists would quit questioning their god's 'perfect' plan.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Well, can we both assume that a "square circle" is an impossible thing? By the standard definitions of both "square" and "circle", they are mutually exclusive things.

That is-- an internally contradictory thing cannot exist?

Usually, this would be the case, in terms of proving something logical. However, this argument cannot be used against God. Precisely because of omniscience. If God can do anything, then by definition, God can BE anything, so the idea of setting a fixed definition to God in the first place is absurd. It does quite nicely against an uncreated (atheistic) created (Big Bang is a cause) universe, though.

Also, there is a difference between what is CLAIMED to be internally contradictory, and what actually IS contradictory.

Rounded sides, must be a circle. Four sides, maybe it's a square.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Usually, this would be the case, in terms of proving something logical. However, this argument cannot be used against God. Precisely because of omniscience. If God can do anything, then by definition, God can BE anything, so the idea of setting a fixed definition to God in the first place is absurd. It does quite nicely against an uncreated (atheistic) created (Big Bang is a cause) universe, though.

Also, there is a difference between what is CLAIMED to be internally contradictory, and what actually IS contradictory.

Rounded sides, must be a circle. Four sides, maybe it's a square.

What you have there, can be described in Geometric terms-- and it's neither circle nor square.
Sorry.

I can prove that your god isn't All Powerful-- easy:

The existence of Evil.

If god was all powerful it COULD have created a Universe without Evil, but it didn't.

Therefore? It either didn't have enough power to do so?

Or it isn't GOOD.

(or it doesn't exist)

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Usually, this would be the case, in terms of proving something logical. However, this argument cannot be used against God. Precisely because of omniscience. If God can do anything, then by definition, God can BE anything, so the idea of setting a fixed definition to God in the first place is absurd. It does quite nicely against an uncreated (atheistic) created (Big Bang is a cause) universe, though.

Also, there is a difference between what is CLAIMED to be internally contradictory, and what actually IS contradictory.

Rounded sides, must be a circle. Four sides, maybe it's a square.

Yes, there are solutions to many problems in many different areas of logic and mathematics that relies on a different approach than either/or.

This particular kind of object represents the intersection of the sets of objects that have two pairs of parallel sides as sides, and those that have four quarters of a circle. It is neither square nor circle, but it has some of the traits of both sets.

It is 50 percent of the traits of either set, not 100 percent square or a 100 percent circle.

This is an example of what is called "fuzzy logic."

Fuzzy logic - Wikipedia

 

[Axe Elf]

I want to concentrate on the following logical fallacy:

There actually is no "logical fallacy" here, you're just denying the hypothesis of the if-then statement in proposition #4--but the logic is not fallacious. I'll walk you through it if you like.

1) An omnibenevolent God would want to create the best of all possible universes.
2) An omniscient God would know how to create the best of all possible universes.
3) An omnipotent God would have the power to create the best of all possible universes.
4) If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God exists, we are logically forced to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes.

The fallacy here? Is assumption #1. That has not been established, and indeed-- the ugly behaviors of the bible's god is anything BUT good. Evil is far more accurate.

First of all, you need to divorce yourself from any value judgments you may be carrying regarding any potentially "real" god or gods. Proposition #1 states a fact that is dependent only upon the meaning of "omnibenevolence"; the desire of an omnibenevolent God would always be for the best. Proposition #1 does not need to be "established" any further than the definition of omnibenevolence already establishes it.

#2 is seemingly valid-- but looking at the universe? Proves that god is evil-- if it exists.

Again, proposition #2 says nothing about our any potentially "real" god or gods, about their goodness, or about our universe itself. Proposition #2 states a fact that is dependent only upon the meaning of "omniscience"; an omniscient God would know how to create the best of all possible universes. This is again established solely by the meaning of the word "omniscience."

Or? God cannot possibly BE all-knowing-- because it does not know how to create a universe without evil in it. If I can imagine it? It could be possible-- and this is a bit of knowledge that your "god" does not know!

Here, you are merely arguing that whichever god created our universe cannot possibly be all-knowing because He did not know how to create a universe without evil. Obviously, this has nothing to do with Proposition #2, which states only that an omniscient God would know how to create the best of all possible universes, but I will indulge you as a sidebar (especially since it seems to be a theme to which you keep referring).

The answer to your argument, of course, is that just because God does not do something is not proof that He does not know how to do it. You might as well claim that God doesn't know how to make unicorns, since He didn't. God may have considered making unicorns, but decided that the universe would be better without them than with them, for whatever reason. The fact that God did not create a universe without evil in it, therefore, does not prove that God does not know HOW to create a universe without evil in it. It may just be indicative that God has deemed a universe with evil in it to be preferable to a universe that does not have evil in it.

This makes a lot of sense, since things exist only in contrast to their negation. Fish don't know they live in water, because they don't have anything to compare it to. We wouldn't understand darkness if there was no such thing as light--nothing would be "not-dark." If I told you that everything in the universe was "begour," you wouldn't know what I was talking about. Of course not, because nothing in the universe is NOT begour! So we would never have been able to know and appreciate goodness without the contrast of evil to make us aware of it.

An omniscient and omnibenevolent God could well decide that a universe that has both good and evil in it is better than a universe that has neither, even if He knew how to effect the latter if He wanted to. And then that's basically what the Bible tells us anyway--that God created darkness and light, goodness and evil, to manifest His majesty.

"I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things." --Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)

And now, back to our regularly-scheduled lesson.

#3 This could be the fallacy that unwinds the problems with #1 and #2-- it could be that god is NOT all powerful after all, for a Failure To Create A Good World For Humans.

Again, kind of a sidebar here, but your accusation that whatever god created this universe failed to create a good world for humans seems a little frivolous, given that humans have been thriving on planet Earth for a couple hundred thousand years now--not so much of a "failure" now, is it?

But anyway, your point is again irrelevant to the argument. Any potentially real god or gods might NOT be omnipotent, but those gods are not addressed by Proposition #3, which addresses gods that ARE omnipotent--an omnipotent God would have the power to create the best of all possible universes.

#4 is a leap without proofs. See above.

Proposition #4 is a conditional statement that is proven by Propositions #1-#3. As we have seen, Propositions #1-#3 are true by definition; they are true because of the meaning of the words "omnibenevolent," "omniscient," and "omnipotent." Proposition #4 hypothesizes that if such a God exists (One that is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent), then the conclusion that we live in the best of all possible universes is inescapable. Propositions #1-#4 constitute a logical proof. The only way to escape the conclusion that we live in the best of all possible universes is to deny the hypothesis that an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God exists. You are welcome to do so, but it doesn't make the logic of the argument fallacious.

A much more likely scenario, presuming god is real? #1 is false, god is both good AND evil-- like humans.

Proposition #1 cannot be false, because its truth is dependent only upon the definition of the word "omnibenevolence." It says nothing about whether or not any omnibenevolent gods exist, only that an omnibenevolent god would want to create the best of all possible universes. This is true by definition.

#2 is false-- there are a LOT of things god doesn't know-- how to make a universe without EVIL, for example...

Proposition #2 cannot be false, because its truth is dependent only upon the definition of the word "omniscience." It says nothing about whether or not any omniscient gods exist, only that an omniscient god would know how to create the best of all possible universes. This is true by definition.

And anyway, as we have seen above, you can't conclude that God doesn't know how to do something just because He has refrained from doing that thing.

#3 then becomes false as well-- without the needed knowledge to create a universe without evil, even if it had all the power? THERE IS SOMETHING IT CANNOT DO: create an evil-free universe. So #3 also false.

Proposition #3 cannot be false, because its truth is dependent only upon the definition of the word "omnipotence." It says nothing about whether or not any omnipotent gods exist, only that an omnipotent god would have the power to create the best of all possible universes. This is true by definition.

And anyway, as with omniscience, choosing not to do something is not evidence of an inability to do that thing. However, in this case, I think it might be.

As we know, the word "omnipotence" doesn't mean you can do anything whatsoever. It just means "all-powerful," that an omnipotent being can do anything that can be done with power. But of course there are a lot of things that cannot be done with any amount of power, like making a square circle, introducing me to a married bachelor, or fashioning a coin with only one side (which would be the equivalent of creating a universe with only good and no evil). For God to violate His own nature--that is, for God to cease to be God--may be something that cannot be done with any amount of power. So God may not have been able to create an inferior universe (one where good could not be recognized because there was no evil), because this would violate His quality of omnibenevolence--He would no longer be creating the best of all possible universes.

So you may be right, God may not be able to create an evil-free universe--but if so, this is not a limit of His omnipotence, it is a testimony to His omnibenevolence. But all this speculation is just an aside to my argument regarding the best of all possible universes.

#4 false conclusion. See above.

Proposition #4 as a whole cannot be false, because the conclusion follows logically from the hypothesis, but you can deny the hypothesis if you like, and assert that an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God does not exist. Then you are allowed to believe that we do not live in the best of all possible universes, if you'd rather not.

 

[Axe Elf]

We ask for proof, and you quote the bible at us?

lol No, you didn't ask me for proof of anything. I stated that very little of what Cary had said could actually be supported by scripture, and you stated that everything he said WAS in the Bible, if I look at it objectively. So I said, "Let's do that."

If you "asked" anything, you asked me about the Bible's position on Cary's claims. At the very least, you were demonstrating an ignorance or a misunderstanding about what the Bible had to say about Cary's claims. What else am I going to do but quote the Bible at you?

Here is how it went down:

I can understand rebelling against the concept of BibleGod. BibleGod is:
1. rationally impossible (omnipotent but can't lie)
2. insane (designs people to think one way, then orders them to think another, then punishes them for not thinking what he never designed them to think)
3. unjust and evil relative to his creation
---a. rewards/punishes according to what is believed rather than moral/immoral actions
---b. punishes far more than offenses warrant

Wow. I don't know where you got all of that, but it wasn't from the Bible. Virtually none of that is supported by scripture.

Actually? It's all in there, if you look at the bible objectively...

And now on to your more recent objections.

Oh well. Snippets of carefully cherry-picked bible isn't very convincing.

I would assume you are applying that criticism to both Cary's position and my own.

I suppose I could look up verses that support what I understand of the very ugly bible-- but I don't think I'll bother.

Well, that would be the thing to do if you care to try to establish your position beyond the mere assertion of it, especially in light of my own evidence of verses that establish my position. If you are willing to concede that Cary's position is NOT reflected by the Bible, and that you were mistaken when you said that "It's all in there," then I accept your unconditional surrender. It probably WOULD be rather difficult to support a position by scripture, now that you've said that snippets of carefully cherry-picked bible wouldn't be very convincing anyway.

I do know what bible-pushers tell me about it's god, and OMNIMAX is always #1 on the list.

"All Good" as another.

Well, that's as good a place to start as any. God's omnis (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and omnibenevolence) comprise four of the five axioms which form the basis for everything I can prove about God (with the axiom that God exists as the fifth).

Both are provably false, of course. But hey... what can you do?

Well, for starters, you could try proving them false. Good luck with that.

You Can Lead A Theist To Knowledge, but you Cannot Force Him To Think.

I have always preferred, "You can lead a whore to wonder, but you can't make her think."

Good theists, on the other hand, consider thinking to be paramount to their spirituality.

"But the spiritual man tries all things [he examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things]" --1 Corinthians 2:15a (Amplified Bible)

"Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully." --1 Peter 3:15b (Amplified Bible)

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I can prove that your god isn't All Powerful-- easy:

The existence of Evil.

If god was all powerful it COULD have created a Universe without Evil, but it didn't.

Therefore? It either didn't have enough power to do so?

Or it isn't GOOD.

(or it doesn't exist)

You don't know my God. You know THEIR god.

My God is...

(Triune)
and this...

(God is One)

and even this...

How does God allow evil to exist if he is all-powerful?

1. Evil exists to test us.
   
2. Evil is an illusion, because humans have knowledge of good and evil, and are thus not in sync with God's Truth.
3. Evil is because YOU behave in a way that is outside the natural order.

 

[Koldo]

I do not believe that is the case--I don't believe there are ANY Bible verses that "prove" that God is not omnibenevolent. Now, there are Bible verses that prove that God is the author of--is responsible for--everything in creation, both that which we call "good" and that which we call "evil." In fact, the Bible states this explicitly:

"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things." --Isaiah 45:7


But this just proves that a universe that contains BOTH good and evil is preferable--better--to a universe that contains neither--and this also addresses the "Problem of Evil" of which you display the Epicurean version in your signature. To formalize the argument:

1) An omnibenevolent God would want to create the best of all possible universes.
2) An omniscient God would know how to create the best of all possible universes.
3) An omnipotent God would have the power to create the best of all possible universes.
4) If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God exists, we are logically forced to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes.

That which we call evil exists, therefore, any evil we observe must be only that amount of evil that is necessary to the best of all possible universes. Why would any evil be necessary to the best of all possible universes? Two reasons--both because of our own interpretation of evil, and because good could not exist except in contrast to its negation.

In the first case, I would think that most would agree that creating an Earth capable of supporting life as we know it is a "good" thing for God to have done. But the consequences of a planet that has the kind of atmosphere that can sustain life as we know it mean that from time to time, a bunch of babies and puppies are going to drown in a hurricane, or people may have everything they own flushed away by a tsunami or leveled by a tornado or earthquake, struck by lightning, etc. Does that prove that God is "evil" because he created Earth with the kind of an atmosphere that can do things that affect humans adversely? Of course not. So there's an awful lot of "evil" in the world that is just a matter of our own perspective--it's "evil" only because of how it affects us as humans.

The second case is just a matter of logic. Fish don't know they live in water, because they don't have anything to compare it to. We would not know what darkness was if there was no light to compare it to--we wouldn't even have a word for "dark" because there would be nothing that is NOT dark to which we would need to contrast darkness. I could tell you that everything in the universe is "begour," but I could not rationally explain to you what "begour" is, because there is nothing that is NOT begour to compare it to.

An omnibenevolent God would want us to know what goodness is, so He would create evil for us to contrast it with. He would only make us put up with evil for a few moments, in the grand scheme of things, before allowing us to experience eternity with only goodness and no evil--but those few moments are necessary to gain an appreciation for goodness versus evil, pleasure versus suffering, etc.

So the fact that God does things one might call "bad" is not proof that He is not omnibenevolent, because such isolated individual acts are not contradictory to, nor inconsistent with, an overall benevolence--kind of like how brief changes in weather are not necessarily indicative of climate change. Just because it's snowing now doesn't mean that the Earth isn't warming overall.

An omnibenevolent God would create the best of all possible universes, and we have no way of showing that our universe, with all of its good and evil, is not as good as it could possibly be.

Dear Leibniz, have you read "Candide, ou l'Optimisme" ?

 

[JoshuaTree]

What you have there, can be described in Geometric terms-- and it's neither circle nor square.
Sorry.

I can prove that your god isn't All Powerful-- easy:

The existence of Evil.

If god was all powerful it COULD have created a Universe without Evil, but it didn't.

Therefore? It either didn't have enough power to do so?

Or it isn't GOOD.

(or it doesn't exist)

God did not create evil he created man lacking faith that God is in control. The author of creation story used the tree of knowledge of good and evil to covertly illustrate this point. Although God pronounced everything "good" man lacked the faith to believe it, this lack of faith illustrates the obstacle folks call sin that is separation from believing God is in control.

 

[Axe Elf]

Dear Leibniz, have you read "Candide, ou l'Optimisme" ?

That's not my name, and I don't speak French.

 

[Axe Elf]

God did not create evil

This just in: JOSHUATREE DECLARES THE BIBLE TO BE LIES!

"I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things." --Isaiah 45:7

 

[dfnj]

You can't prove a negative. This whole thread is silly.

 

[Axe Elf]

You can't prove a negative. This whole thread is silly.

Sure you can. For instance, I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no elephant in my nose.

 

[tayla]

A God who wants people to figure out reality

A good point. Why would God create creatures having a desire to understand such things,... then leave them ignorant?

 

[Cary Cook]

A good point. Why would God create creatures having a desire to understand such things,... then leave them ignorant?

Ignorance is where all minds start. Everything that is learned is learned by applying reason to personal experience. Leaving us ignorant is the best (possibly only) way to motivate us to learn. Critical thinking is cumulative in effect. The more you figure out, the more you can figure out.

 

[tayla]

Everything that is learned is learned by applying reason to personal experience.

A very profound observation. It implies, I think, that each person will have their own deeply held views; and this is exactly what we observe.

 

[tayla]

Leaving us ignorant is the best (possibly only) way to motivate us to learn.

This implies, I think, that in creating us the way he did, God had a plan for us; the plan being, that we use our reason to increase knowledge. Presumably, our gained knowledge would be based on truth and would make us more aware of the God who created us. Seems kind of pointless if not.