Is an Omnipotent God Bound to Logic

fiat lux · Mar 31, 2015

Salek Atesh said:
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

The problem I have with your assertion is that you speak as if evil had an objectively definable reality. I asked earlier (#33) for a definition but have so far received none. Looking at the present world, members of the so called "Islamic State" appear to believe that I and my like are "infidels", worthless, evil, and worthy of elimination, and I on my part think that because of their actions it is they who are evil. Who is right ?
Then there is the German Wings pilot who last week took his own and the lives of 150 others; was he evil, or just ill ?

Salek Atesh · Mar 31, 2015

Shad said:
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.

This is just semantics

God is All Powerful and All Knowing: Those two axioms correspond to my Can stop evil. My first axiom is thus equivalent to your first and second.

"God is perfectly good" relies on a VERY subjective definition of "good". The only definition of "good" in which the argument works, is an argument where "perfectly good" includes the desire to end all evil. Because if the definition of "perfectly good" does not include this facet, the "problem" isn't a problem at all. Therefore, my second axiom is sufficient to cover your third.

My third and your fourth axiom are identical.

Some theists do not agree with your fourth axiom. Most theists do not agree with the implication of your third axiom, the implication that "perfectly good" means the eradication of all evil. Thus the problem of evil applies to no one.

Salek Atesh · Mar 31, 2015

fiat lux said:
The problem I have with your assertion is that you speak as if evil had an objectively definable reality. I asked earlier (#33) for a definition but have so far received none. Looking at the present world, members of the so called "Islamic State" appear to believe that I and my like are "infidels", worthless, evil, and worthy of elimination, and I on my part think that because of their actions it is they who are evil. Who is right ?
Then there is the German Wings pilot who last week took his own and the lives of 150 others; was he evil, or just ill ?

Yes, that is my problem with the problem of evil. The PoE acts as if evil had an objectively definable reality.

Again, as I've stated, I do not believe evil is a real thing. Baha'is don't believe in evil.

Shad · Mar 31, 2015

Salek Atesh said:
This is just semantics

God is All Powerful and All Knowing: Those two axioms correspond to my Can stop evil. My first axiom is thus equivalent to your first and second.

"God is perfectly good" relies on a VERY subjective definition of "good". The only definition of "good" in which the argument works, is an argument where "perfectly good" includes the desire to end all evil. Because if the definition of "perfectly good" does not include this facet, the "problem" isn't a problem at all. Therefore, my second axiom is sufficient to cover your third.

My third and your fourth axiom are identical.

Some theists do not agree with your fourth axiom. Most theists do not agree with the implication of your third axiom, the implication that "perfectly good" means the eradication of all evil. Thus the problem of evil applies to no one.

You are ignoring the key point. Your axioms are not common theistic axioms. By rejecting 3 you no longer representing common theist concepts only your own. So the PoE still stands for common theist arguments as the majority accept these axioms. If one rejects 3 there is not problem obviously. However the PoE is not addressing your modification, it is address the axioms I said it was addressing. You are merely creating a strawman by replacing axioms the argument is addressing with your own. Thus your defense is not against the PoE but your own strawman of the PoE. It does nothing to resolve the problem it is addressing. Hence my "semantics" come into play when various theology is added. Without theology one can only take a view of Deism not Theism. A less than perfect God which can be apathetic towards the beings God has knowledge of.

Now for your view I find it acceptable since you have already dismissed 3 which is one of the results of the PoE. I fail to see why you argue against it when in fact you agree with it's conclusion by questioning 3. Perfectly good does entail the facet you drop. To drop it is to be less than perfectly good.

Salek Atesh · Mar 31, 2015

Shad said:
You are ignoring the key point. Your axioms are not common theistic axioms.

It's just a matter of restating it. It's the exact same axioms stated in a simpler, clearer manner.

The first two of yours are the same as the first of mine. Our last axioms are both the same.

The only one that differs is my "God wants to eliminate evil" which I prefer to your "God is perfectly good" because your axiom doesn't bother defining "perfectly good." Therefore I find your axiom vague and unhelpful. BUT your axiom, in the argument presented, implies "God wants to eliminate evil." Because the god's not doing so is given as evidence that it is either unable or unwilling to stop existent evil (and being unwilling to stop evil is taken as evidence that it is not "perfectly good").

Without this axiom the problem of evil does not function, seeing as without this axiom a perfectly good, all-powerful god is not disproved by the existence of evil. The god is only disproved by the existence of evil if being "perfectly good" is requisite on its elimination of all "evil".

The problem is, your typical (mono)theist does not accept this implied axiom. Therefore, your entire Problem of Evil falls apart because the implied axiom of "a perfectly good being wants to eliminate all evil" is not a "common theistic axiom", as you put it.

Shad · Mar 31, 2015

Salek Atesh said:
It's just a matter of restating it. It's the exact same axioms stated in a simpler, clearer manner.

The first two of yours are the same as the first of mine. Our last axioms are both the same.

The only one that differs is my "God wants to eliminate evil" which I prefer to your "God is perfectly good" because your axiom doesn't bother defining "perfectly good." Therefore I find your axiom vague and unhelpful. BUT your axiom, in the argument presented, implies "God wants to eliminate evil." Because the god's not doing so is given as evidence that it is either unable or unwilling to stop existent evil (and being unwilling to stop evil is taken as evidence that it is not "perfectly good").

Without this axiom the problem of evil does not function, seeing as without this axiom a perfectly good, all-powerful god is not disproved by the existence of evil. The god is only disproved by the existence of evil if being "perfectly good" is requisite on its elimination of all "evil".

The problem is, your typical (mono)theist does not accept this implied axiom. Therefore, your entire Problem of Evil falls apart because the implied axiom of "a perfectly good being wants to eliminate all evil" is not a "common theistic axiom", as you put it.

The implied desire of ending evil is part of being perfectly good as no one good wants evil to happen and will prevent it if possible. It is also a major part of theology. If theists reject this axiom they have rendered God less than the greatest conceive being and acknowledge their claim of perfectly good is false. Unwillingness is to be apathetic toward something. If one sees an immoral act in action and does nothing to prevent it they are morally culpable. All you have done is acknowledge the PoE as valid by redefining perfectly good to not perfectly good. The argument stands, is valid and sound by admittance of redefining the axiom.

The typical monotheist which has any scripture which has a show down between good and evil, judgement day, the last day, etc. has already admitted that God will end evil. Hence there is a desire to do so. The more their scripture talks about what is moral and what is not the greater the desire. The less action God takes after talking the talking increases the culpability for doing nothing. If the typical theist is oblivious to this implication it is not a failure of the argument but a failure of the theist in understanding their own theology, nothing more.

Salek Atesh · Mar 31, 2015

Shad said:
The implied desire of ending evil is part of being perfectly good as no one good wants evil to happen and will prevent it if possible.

Exactly!! Well, by your subjective definitions of "good" and "evil" that is.

Which means my second axiom is just a different way of saying your third axiom.

So my first axiom is identical to your first and second.
My second is identical to your third.
My third is identical to your fourth.

So what is the problem here?? You're just arguing semantics.

McBell · Mar 31, 2015

Shad said:
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.

Number three presents a problem do to the subjectivity of the word "good".

Salek Atesh · Mar 31, 2015

Shad said:
The typical monotheist which has any scripture which has a show down between good and evil, judgement day, the last day, etc. has already admitted that God will end evil. Hence there is a desire to do so.

More correctly: "Hence there is a desire to do so, eventually."

It remains true that very few monotheists believe their god wants to end it now. Thus disagreeing with my second/your third axiom(based on your requirements for "perfectly good").

Shad · Mar 31, 2015

Salek Atesh said:
More correctly: "Hence there is a desire to do so, eventually."

Nope, the desire is there as part of the "great plan". It is merely procrastinating thus culpability for inaction.

It remains true that very few monotheists believe their god wants to end it now. Thus disagreeing with my second/your third axiom(based on your requirements for "perfectly good").

Procrastination is not a defense but an acknowledgement of inaction.

Shad · Mar 31, 2015

Mestemia said:
Number three presents a problem do to the subjectivity of the word "good".

Yes it does. However keep in mind this is using theist terms not terms supplied by me. 3 is just a rewording of omnibenevolence and the idea that God is the source of objective morality. If a less than benevolent being actively tries to stop evil, humans do this, with every power available but the most powerful being does not this says a lot. There is an the actual moral being and one with the facade of being one that contradicts the two axioms applied to the concept of God.

Shad · Mar 31, 2015

Salek Atesh said:
Exactly!! Well, by your subjective definitions of "good" and "evil" that is.

Which means my second axiom is just a different way of saying your third axiom.

So my first axiom is identical to your first and second.
My second is identical to your third.
My third is identical to your fourth.

So what is the problem here?? You're just arguing semantics.

Not mine, it is supplied by the theist in error. The greater the claim that a being is in fact moral the greater amount of evidence to support this view is required. So far there is more evidence of humans being the more moral of the two. Keep in mind God is supposedly morally perfect but does little to show any evidence to support the claim.

Nope you have redefined desire out of perfectly good. If one does not actively pursue moral good but sits on the fence doing nothing in events of evil this is culpability and evidence of not being moral. If inaction is for a purpose this is just the basic idea of "The ends justify the means" which many reject and find adhorant. This also creates a very useful defense for immoral acts. If God is let off with such an argument people can be as well. This is outcome bias These are the problems, your redefining of perfectly out of the axiom while claiming you have done no such thing and the bias.

Salek Atesh · Apr 1, 2015

Shad said:
Nope you have redefined desire out of perfectly good. If one does not actively pursue moral good but sits on the fence doing nothing in events of evil this is culpability and evidence of not being moral. If inaction is for a purpose this is just the basic idea of "The ends justify the means" which many reject and find adhorant. This also creates a very useful defense for immoral acts. If God is let off with such an argument people can be as well. This is outcome bias These are the problems, your redefining of perfectly out of the axiom while claiming you have done no such thing and the bias.

Again, you're saying the desire to eliminate evil is a part of being "perfectly good." You're stating that without the desire to eliminate evil always, to prevent it from occurring ever, etc. then the being is not "perfectly good."

Look at that part I underlined. You are, right there, saying that if a being does not eliminate evil immediately (that is, now) then it is not "perfectly good", correct??

Are you saying that a deity can allow evil and still be perfectly good??

Because if not, then what's even the difference?? You can say it how ever you want, it still boils down to "the god wants to end all evil immediately."

You're arguing semantics. It's the same concept. Who cares how you pronounce "potato"??

Shad · Apr 1, 2015

Salek Atesh said:
Again, you're saying the desire to eliminate evil is a part of being "perfectly good." You're stating that without the desire to eliminate evil always, to prevent it from occurring ever, etc. then the being is not "perfectly good."

Yes I am, as good being try to stop evil in the present world. A perfectly good being so wish to do this to a greater level. If one sits on the fence doing nothing about it they are apathetic towards others and not as moral as they claim.

Look at that part I underlined. You are, right there, saying that if a being does not eliminate evil immediately (that is, now) then it is not "perfectly good", correct??

Are you saying that a deity can allow evil and still be perfectly good??

Allowing evil when one has the ability to stop it make a being less than perfectly good. Actions speak louder than words. One can go on and on about how moral they are but if there is no action behind the lip service it undermines the claim.

Because if not, then what's even the difference?? You can say it how ever you want, it still boils down to "the god wants to end all evil immediately."

You're arguing semantics. It's the same concept. Who cares how you pronounce "potato"??

No I am arguing implication of "perfectly good" with action rather than lip-service. Like I said people can talk the talk but if they do not provide action to back up their views the claim is unsubstantiated.

It is not the same concept as inaction leads to culpability and apathy

Salek Atesh · Apr 2, 2015

Shad said:
No I am arguing implication of "perfectly good" with action rather than lip-service. Like I said people can talk the talk but if they do not provide action to back up their views the claim is unsubstantiated.

It is not the same concept as inaction leads to culpability and apathy

Poh-tay-to, Poh-tah-to.

I don't care to argue who has phrased it better, so fine: Saying "Perfectly Good" and then going on to state that a perfectly good whatever would actively end evil is the best way of saying it. My statement of the axiom being that the god wants to end evil is worded in an inferior manner. You're axioms are worded the best. You can win. I really don't care. We're talking about the same concepts different ways. It's not really important to me which words we use.

fiat lux · Apr 2, 2015

Moving away from abstractions for a moment, please see my post #41 above, - still no answers!

Skwim · Apr 2, 2015

fiat lux said:
Moving away from abstractions for a moment, please see my post #41 above, - still no answers!

Don't know what your "I and my like" consists of, but perhaps the beliefs of members of the so called "Islamic State" are really not what they appear to be. So, I hesitate in taking this appearance to the next step and regard it as more than that and pass judgement on it. As for your thinking that it is "they who are evil," think what ever you wish. So, as for being right, I see no right or wrong in what appears to you or what you think. These are what they are. Do they have a basis in fact? I don't know. This is something you'd have to establish. Do they actually believe what they appear to you to believe? And, is what you think actually true?

As to your question "Then there is the German Wings pilot who last week took his own and the lives of 150 others; was he evil, or just ill ?" I'm calling it an illness abetted by a total lack of empathy.

Salek Atesh · Apr 2, 2015

fiat lux said:
Moving away from abstractions for a moment, please see my post #41 above, - still no answers!

Replied in post #43 good sir.

Shad · Apr 3, 2015

Salek Atesh said:
Poh-tay-to, Poh-tah-to.

I don't care to argue who has phrased it better, so fine: Saying "Perfectly Good" and then going on to state that a perfectly good whatever would actively end evil is the best way of saying it. My statement of the axiom being that the god wants to end evil is worded in an inferior manner. You're axioms are worded the best. You can win. I really don't care. We're talking about the same concepts different ways. It's not really important to me which words we use.

It is not the same concept if the PoE axioms include parameters which your own do not. Hence you are arguing a strawman and fail to see how inaction is apathy and culpability.

Salek Atesh · Apr 3, 2015

Shad said:
It is not the same concept if the PoE axioms include parameters which your own do not. Hence you are arguing a strawman and fail to see how inaction is apathy and culpability.

Lol, man. I tried stating the same thing as you are insisting is correct (and YES for the final time your axioms are the "correct" ones).

I just used different wording on them, to avoid the "perfectly good" phrasing which only causes confusion (to a Taoish person like myself, being "perfectly good" would require inaction, rather than action).

Thus I thought it better to make it clear that this "perfect goodness" nonsense-phrase meant a willingness to act against "evil", thus avoiding the whole point of confusion that "perfectly good" is a subjective notion with infinite possible interpretations.

But, again, I really don't care which words you choose to use. And I'll concede that your axioms are worded better because I don't care to argue wording further."

If you want to say "perfectly good", FINE. That's the best way to say it or whatever. I don't care how you want to word it.

This does not change the fact most theists reject the idea that their deity is "perfectly good" as your superiorly worded axiom defines perfectly good. They still, by majority, reject your third axiom, however you word it.

Is an Omnipotent God Bound to Logic

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Resident Sourpuss

Active Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member