How an Omnipotent and All Loving God cannot exist.

[Alitheia Aylso]

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

 

[Nakosis]

For the malevolent God.

You call God, God because God will kick your backside if you don't.

 

[Quintessence]

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

Granted.

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

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.

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

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).

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

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.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If a god exists, nothing discounts the possibility of it being malevolent, and most things would indicate this is a better possibility than the opposite.

 

[columbus]

If you have the capacity to donate to the poor, but don't, are you somehow responsible for all poverty?

Yes!
If you are an OMNIMAX being and just plan for and watch huge suffering you are responsible for it.
If you are a limited human being that wouldnt apply of course.
Tom

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes!
If you are an OMNIMAX being and just plan for and watch huge suffering you are responsible for it.
If you are a limited human being that wouldnt apply of course.
Tom

Oh, so I guess you think that all-powerful somehow means you can do anything you want?

 

[columbus]

Oh, so I guess you think that all-powerful somehow means you can do anything you want?

I was trying to edit that to insert "sapient" in between OMNIMAX and being.
My phone doesn't get along with RF very well.
Tom

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I was trying to edit that to insert "sapient" in between OMNIMAX and being.
My phone doesn't get along with RF very well.
Tom

Don't sweat it, I was just being sarcastic, being that many people don't seem to be able to comprehend what all-powerful would actually entail.

 

[columbus]

Don't sweat it, I was just being sarcastic, being that many people don't seem to be able to comprehend what all-powerful would actually entail.

I know.
I'm not expecting this thread to go very far unless it gets derailed.
Perhaps a rousing debate about the meaning of the word suffering. More likely a discussion about free will.
Nobody will touch the logical basis of the OP.
Tom

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

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.

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?

 

[Augustus]

Not that I believe it, but if a monotheistic all powerful god did exist, then we would have to be open to the possibility that there was indeed a reason for it that we don't understand.

If there was a monotheistic god he would be so superior in understanding to us that there might indeed be a reason behind all of this.Theoretical physics doesn't make sense to a 3 year old (or most of us actually), but that doesn't mean it must therefore be impossible.

If a monotheistic god existed, then you would have to accept he understood far more than you and was therefore more likely to be correct than you (and seeing as he wrote the 'rules', he is certain to be correct).

If god exists, then humans can't understand him. So you can't logically argue that because humans can't understand him, god doesn't exist.

 

[suncowiam]

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.

Since everyone else is picking on this quote, I will pick on it too.

Donating to the poor and having the power to end proverty are two different things.

Your example does not parallel what the OP is pointing out by any bit. It's misleading the subject.

If one has the ability to heal cancer without any cost, then chooses not to... What does that suggest of that person? From a human stand point and specifically my own, I would consider that extremely selfish and callous.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

Not that I believe it, but if a monotheistic all powerful god did exist, then we would have to be open to the possibility that there was indeed a reason for it that we don't understand.

If there was a monotheistic god he would be so superior in understanding to us that there might indeed be a reason behind all of this.Theoretical physics doesn't make sense to a 3 year old (or most of us actually), but that doesn't mean it must therefore be impossible.

If a monotheistic god existed, then you would have to accept he understood far more than you and was therefore more likely to be correct than you (and seeing as he wrote the 'rules', he is certain to be correct).

If god exists, then humans can't understand him. So you can't logically argue that because humans can't understand him, god doesn't exist.

Then if Humans cannot understand him that means that he made humans that way, therefore he wants humans to be ignorant.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Isn't this the possible scenario?

God is omnipotent. Humanity causes evil. For God to erase evil, God would either have to remove our free will or destroy humanity. Not all of humanity is evil, there's enough good in the world to justify keeping us around. The omnipotent God will deal with the evil in humanity as they die.

 

[Quintessence]

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

How does the notion of "responsibility" apply to an omnipotent being? Does this human notion of reciprocity and justice matter or reasonably apply to a classical monotheist god-concept?

Although I'm hardly a classical monotheist myself, I'd posit that it doesn't. In order for the notion of "responsibility" in the sense you likely mean to be at all meaningful, one has to be able to hold that entity accountable for its (in)actions. Clearly, we can't do that for the classical monotheist god as mere human beings. Given that the one-god of classical monotheists cannot be held responsible, isn't the question of "is it responsible" sort of irrelevant?

That aside, I think that people in general need to be very careful about projecting their values and view of the world onto other beings, whether it is other people, other non-human animals, or onto gods (classical monotheist or otherwise). In this thread, the classical monotheist god is being assessed by human standards. Is it reasonable to suppose that an non-human entity - particularly something as foreign as an omnimax type god - would hold itself to human standards? Not really. It's about as reasonable as supposing a tree has the same idea of justice as a person. If two humans understand reality in very different ways, one can only imagine that two different species would understand reality even more differently. I don't know how you or I would know how the gods view things. What they would consider "evil" (if they even have such a concept at all), or what it means to be "responsible" and the like. Regardless, I think it is in error to measure the gods by the standards of humans... since... well... autotheism notwithstanding, the gods aren't humans.

 

[George-ananda]

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

The famous Problem of Evil once again. It is based on concepts from traditional Judeo-Christian thinking. In eastern/Indian pantheistic thought there are several different concepts at play here:

1) Christian theology poses a duality between God and Creation. Eastern pantheism is non-dual (God and creation are not-two).

2) Christian theology posits one lifetime. Eastern pantheism posits many lifetimes where cause/effect can not be seen from our normal perspective.

These arguments do not make sense in eastern pantheistic thought. It is God at the core of everything and it is He who experiences the temporary good and bad fortunes. It is ultimately not Him imposing it (or allowing it) on other separate beings. It is His play/drama where He separates Himself from Himself and returns Himself to Himself but this play ends with a happy ending for all. In any great play/drama there is always drama/suffering in the middle.

 

[Quintessence]

Since everyone else is picking on this quote, I will pick on it too.

Donating to the poor and having the power to end proverty are two different things.

Your example does not parallel what the OP is pointing out by any bit. It's misleading the subject.

If one has the ability to heal cancer without any cost, then chooses not to... What does that suggest of that person? From a human stand point and specifically my own, I would consider that extremely selfish and callous.

That's fair, although that really wasn't what I was getting at. What I was prompting us to think about is what it means to be "responsible" for something. The particulars of my example are honestly irrelevant to that point.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

How does the notion of "responsibility" apply to an omnipotent being? Does this human notion of reciprocity and justice matter or reasonably apply to a classical monotheist god-concept?

Although I'm hardly a classical monotheist myself, I'd posit that it doesn't. In order for the notion of "responsibility" in the sense you likely mean to be at all meaningful, one has to be able to hold that entity accountable for its (in)actions. Clearly, we can't do that for the classical monotheist god as mere human beings. Given that the one-god of classical monotheists cannot be held responsible, isn't the question of "is it responsible" sort of irrelevant?

That aside, I think that people in general need to be very careful about projecting their values and view of the world onto other beings, whether it is other people, other non-human animals, or onto gods (classical monotheist or otherwise). In this thread, the classical monotheist god is being assessed by human standards. Is it reasonable to suppose that an non-human entity - particularly something as foreign as an omnimax type god - would hold itself to human standards? Not really. It's about as reasonable as supposing a tree has the same idea of justice as a person. If two humans understand reality in very different ways, one can only imagine that two different species would understand reality even more differently. I don't know how you or I would know how the gods view things. What they would consider "evil" (if they even have such a concept at all), or what it means to be "responsible" and the like. Regardless, I think it is in error to measure the gods by the standards of humans... since... well... autotheism notwithstanding, the gods aren't humans.

I base my morals on sentience not being human, there are humans which are not sentient. If (hypothetially) aliens and advanced AI came to our attention I would treat them the same as a human. Why should a deity be different? Is it not subjective because it has more power? If a deity is not sentient then they are not responsible but why then would they be worshiped if they are mindless?

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

The famous Problem of Evil once again. It is based on concepts from traditional Judeo-Christian thinking. In eastern/Indian pantheistic thought there are several different concepts at play here:

1) Christian theology poses a duality between God and Creation. Eastern pantheism is non-dual (God and creation are not-two).

2) Christian theology posits one lifetime. Eastern pantheism posits many lifetimes where cause/effect can not be seen from our normal perspective.

These arguments do not make sense in eastern pantheistic thought. It is God at the core of everything and it is He who experiences the temporary good and bad fortunes. It is ultimately not Him imposing it (or allowing it) on other separate beings. It is His play/drama where He separates Himself from Himself and returns Himself to Himself but this play ends with a happy ending for all. In any great play/drama there is always drama/suffering in the middle.

Pantheism cannot be proven or refuted by reason.

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

By the way to remind posters of the topic matter. The name of the thread is "Why an Omnipotent and all Loving God cannot exist."

So this is strictly against monotheistic Gods that are all powerful and all loving.