McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I suspect god resides in the imagination.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is an Omnipotent God Bound to Logic
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
JosephThomas
Member
The answer to the question is all three. His person is not limited to Outside, but to define it as inside is incomplete, and to suggest he is the Universe is in no way contrary to either prior thesi.
Mestemia
As far as: The Square being Circle:
By definition the Square is not a circle because of it's parameters. YET YES HE CAN!! though the square is always a square unless it is transformed into a circle. God can change the very meaning of the words on your tongue from the very depths of your conscience.
Rocks he cannot lift! how obscured. Is not Jesus the very corner stone which he crushes all his opponents? Yet in his unchanging, unyielding Self, he is the Divine Condition of Jesus, and that stone will never be lifted; for it is in perfect consideration of all past-future-and-present circumstances and is in his perfect judgment to never be lifted lest he be miraculously wrong in his first consideration of Eternity, even in his ETERNAL condition of evaluating the situation, therefor considering the miraculous potential and deeming it NOT in fact the CHANGING HIS PERSON, nor the lifting of this Corner Stone.
indeed.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
thus we see why it so hard to take some theists seriously.
Salek Atesh
Active Member
This is wrong, actually. If we assume that a being can defy logic, then the problem of evil (itself built of logic) is completely thrown out the window.
The god can be "willing to stop evil" and still ALLOW evil to exist, because the god can contradict logic because it is not bound to it.
You can't reason or posit a problem with a being that is capable of metaphysical self-contradiction.
Remember, with how you've posited this "degree" of omnipotence, this god can do anything, including (but not limited to) allowing evil while simultaneously wishing to rid the world of evil.
"Controls" is a misleading word. "Limits" is more accurate. How can the god be the "greatest" while still being limited to logic?? Fairly easily, as logic isn't a force or will of its own but is rather just a standard that states that X cannot simultaneously be both True and False.
In this "level" of omnipotence, the god can be called "Greatest" for it can do anything within the standard of logic. Since nothing can do anything outside the standard of logic, then the god literally has the "Greatest" amount of power any being could have (this, of course, assuming the axiom that everything must be logical applies to the universe).
Salek Atesh
Active Member
It's based on three axioms:
-God can stop all evil
-God wants to stop all evil
-Evil exists in this world
The problem being almost no one accepts all three axioms to be true at the same time. Traditional monotheists normally hold only to the first axiom, and deny one of the other two, so it pretty much applies to no one.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Huh? Evil exists because humans have freewill.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Agreed; it's inferred nonsense, has nothing to do with Abrahamic belief.
Salek Atesh
Active Member
Yes, thus disagreeing with the "God wants to stop all evil" axiom. Many monotheists believe God wants free will, and thus does not want to stop all evil, and therefore the "problem of evil" does not work on them.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Okie dokie. Must've mis-read your comment,
psychoslice
Veteran Member
For me personally there is no god, so there is not problem.
Shad
Veteran Member
Then God is not as moral as humans as we want to stop violence and acts of "evil". It says a lot that the most powerful being is fine sitting back watching people commit horror after horror upon each other.
Salek Atesh
Active Member
Evil isn't real.
Anyways while the god in question doesn't fit your definition of "moral", it fits the people who believe allowing free will to be the greatest good, which is what matters in the case of the beliefs of those people. Personally, I don't believe in any good/evil dichotomy, so convincing me your definition of "moral" is "correct" will be hard.
ether-ore
Active Member
I myself fall within the class of those that perceive the second proposition to be the accurate one. First: the words 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' are nowhere found in scripture. Those are assessments made by men after the fact. It is more accurate and sufficient to say that God knows all there is to know and has all power to do what He needs to do. I do happen to believe that God abides His own law. He restricts Himself to it. He could conceivably operate outside His law, but then He would cease to be God. God subjecting Himself to law, or logic, or self discipline does not mean He is controlled by something else. He is controlling Himself. The term 'greatest' applies only to sentient beings, not constructs such as law and logic. So, God is the greatest of all sentient beings.
Shad
Veteran Member
If evil is not real it's counter part good is not real. Both are value assessments which contradict most concepts of God as being moral and the source of morality.
I am only following the contradictory views of moral taught by theists not my own. I am using their own idea of moral against them. Free will is not an excuse for God to take no action no more than it is for humans. All you have shown is that God lacks moral convictions. He talks the talk but does not walk the walk. God is unwilling to lift a finger thus is apathetic toward what it has created. Since God has created free will God is also responsible for the results of it. God could have created such a reality in which free will exists without moral evil such a the supposed reality of heaven. Since there is already such a reality according to most forms of theism by not placing us within this reality God has chosen the less desirable of the two thus is responsible for the evil in the world. More so humans can use this defense of free will to render the justice system irrelevant. After all if such an excuse is acceptable for God it is acceptable for humans. However human do not find it acceptable. Thus ground morality in God is flawed and we are capable of a greater scope of morality than God is capable of and willing to implement.
Imagine a world in which law enforce disband based on such an argument. The refusal to stop an immoral act such as murder in order to safeguard the free will of the murder. This is the type world in which such a flawed defense entails. It absolves everyone from any responsibility to anyone but themselves.It prevents people from taking actions as no to violate free will.
If you do not believe in such dichotomy why even bring up the flawed defenses used by those that do?
Last edited:
Salek Atesh
Active Member
Look at all my posts. I stated that the problem with the "problem of evil" is that it relies on three axioms:
1: God can end all evil
2: God wants to end all evil
and 3: Evil exists in this world
I stated this is flawed because no theist in the world believes in all three axioms, thus the "problem of evil" applies only to beliefs that no one actually possesses.
Most theists reject the second axiom. Their definition of what an "all-good" being would do does not include ending all evil. They believe an all-moral entity would not try to end evil. Ending evil is not inherently "good" just because you think ending evil would be a good thing to do. Most theists do not agree with you on this notion. (Granted: not many in this group apply their idea on what a good being would do to their own behavior. IE, they personally may try to end evil. But this hypocrisy is a different matter entirely.)
I for one reject the third axiom, but many reject the second instead. But it's not really important which axiom is rejected, since if any of the three axioms are rejected, then the problem of evil no longer applies. And since no one holds all three axioms, the problem of evil applies to no one.
Shad
Veteran Member
No it does not. The axioms the PoE are addressing are the triple O's and evil. It is not forming it's own. The argument shows the incoherence of the axioms comprising God theists provide themselves. If God is unwilling to end evil then God is not benevolent merely neutral or malevolent. If God can stand by and let evil occur without acting then God is not moral but immoral. Since the concept of Heaven exist in which there is no evil there is a possible world in which humans could have existed. Since God chose not to place people there responsibility is on God as well as human agents for evil acts. This is immoral thus undermines the concept of a moral God. God's unwillingness to end evil also contradicts the concept of judgement day in the big 3 Abe religions which is the end of evil. So God is willing but procrastinating.. Also with God interfereing with humanity with revelations and direct actions contradicts God's unwillingness to end evil; codes of conduct, judgement, laws, moral codes, etc.
Rejecting axioms which are not part of the PoE does not to resolve the issue. The only axiom PoE states itself is that of evil. The rest is supplied by theists themselves. The PoE merely points out the incoherence of theist axioms.
The axioms for the PoE are as follows:
(1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful).
(2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing).
(3) God is perfectly good.
(4) Evil exists.
Theists do agree with me since I am using 3 axioms which are provided by them. I am not using your axioms. You are creating axioms for the PoE as a strawman. The PoE eliminates 1, 2, 3 or a combination of these. One can maintain evil within agents with free will but not evil within nature which is created by God. Infliction such as leprosy are unwarranted and eliminate 3.
Last edited: