G-d's Paradox

[Wookiemonster]

This was an exercise in my husbands logic class. I'm not trying to make a point, just an exercise to make you think. So remember you can NOT argue that' I'm wrong because the Bible/Preacher/Mom or Dad taught you that G-d was this that or the other.

1. If G-d was all powerful he could get rid of Evil.
2. If G-d was all-loving he would want to get rid of Evil
3. Evil exists

Therefore G-d is either not all powerful or not all loving

The replys to the common arguments with this are way to numerous to post, but if any one wants to post a LOGICAL argument here feel free to do so.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Well, you could argue that if God were all loving, he would even love that which was evil, and not want to get rid of it. I suppose there are some assumptions about Evil and all loving that underpin #2. I don't necessarily disagree, but you could do it.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Also, what exactly does "all powerful" entail? Does that mean God could make a round square? Could he exist and not exist at the same time? Could he rewind time and change things? I mean, all-powerful is a weird concept.

 

[TheKnight]

This was an exercise in my husbands logic class. I'm not trying to make a point, just an exercise to make you think. So remember you can NOT argue that' I'm wrong because the Bible/Preacher/Mom or Dad taught you that G-d was this that or the other.

1. If G-d was all powerful he could get rid of Evil.
2. If G-d was all-loving he would want to get rid of Evil
3. Evil exists

Therefore G-d is either not all powerful or not all loving

The replys to the common arguments with this are way to numerous to post, but if any one wants to post a LOGICAL argument here feel free to do so.

The logical rebuttal is obvious...the logic used for the conclusion is based on the accepted premise that evil is bad for us. We don't like evil, but we cannot necessarily say that it isn't the best thing for us at the time when it occurs.

In essence, the second part "If God was all-loving He would want to get rid of evil" is an incorrect conclusion. After all, we (who believe in the Tanakh) know that God created (evil) and if we trust Him and His judgment that means that if we believe He is all-loving, then evil somehow fits into the expression of His love.

Now, suppose you could conclude that God is not all-loving, this doesn't mean that He isn't all powerful. Number 1 and number 2 are entirely separate in relation to number 3.

Evil exists. If God is all-loving then He would want to get rid of evil. Therefore God is not all-loving. (The logic for this does not follow because we assume that the most loving thing would be to get rid of evil).

So evil's existence means that God is not all-loving. That doesn't infer that He isn't all-powerful. The only way to conclude that He is not all-powerful is to know that He is all-loving, and that the most loving thing to do would be to remove evil. And until someone proves that evil is not the most loving thing, they cannot assert that God is neither all-loving nor all-powerful.

 

[TheKnight]

Also, what exactly does "all powerful" entail? Does that mean God could make a round square? Could he exist and not exist at the same time? Could he rewind time and change things? I mean, all-powerful is a weird concept.

I would only like to address the second two questions you asked.

Logically, if you have contradicted yourself in describing the action, then you haven't given any criteria for something to occur. Can God make a round sqaure?

Making a round square is a contradiction in terms and therefore your question would be invalid. Similarly, Could He exist and not exist at the same time? Existing and not existing at the same time isn't an action.

Basically, how can you ask if God can do something that isn't an action?

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

I would only like to address the second two questions you asked.

Logically, if you have contradicted yourself in describing the action, then you haven't given any criteria for something to occur. Can God make a round sqaure?

Making a round square is a contradiction in terms and therefore your question would be invalid. Similarly, Could He exist and not exist at the same time? Existing and not existing at the same time isn't an action.

Basically, how can you ask if God can do something that isn't an action?

Well, since he's all powerful he can do anything he wants, even if it's not an action. I admit I'm over my head on this one. But seriously, my point is this, all powerful beings are still bound by universal laws. He couldn't within our physical world make a coin one-sided for instance.

 

[Wookiemonster]

Just so ya'll know...I have not intention of arguing any point in this thread. I have never taken a logic class and would inevitably stick my foot so far down my throat that I would choke on it. I however have great respect for some of the minds that frequent these forums and wanted to see what their opinion on this was.

 

[TheKnight]

Well, since he's all powerful he can do anything he wants, even if it's not an action. I admit I'm over my head on this one. But seriously, my point is this, all power beings are still bound by universal laws. He couldn't within our physical world make a coin one-sided for instance.

Ahh yes. But to ask if He can make a one-sided coin is to not ask anything at all really. It's like adding a +1 and a -1 together. The action your describing isn't an action.

 

[Poisonshady313]

anything.

any THING.

and, by implication, everything.

The common denominator being "thing". One sided coins, squared circles... these aren't things.

They fall outside the set of {things}.

Which I guess would make it "nothing". Saying God can do nothing directly contradicts the assertion that He can do anything.

Existing and not existing... if "not existing" is considered doing something (which is part of anything), and God can do "anything", then you'd have to accept the premise that God exists in a state in which, at least part of the time, he can NOT do anything

Since the assumption about God is that He is eternal, to ever not exist would mean that God doesn't exist at all.

Strange position for someone who believes in God to take, wouldn't you say?

not existing... this represents the non-action that TheKnight is talking about.

To suggest that God can do something which would negate His own existence means you reject the premise of God as an eternal being.

 

[slave2six]

The logical rebuttal is obvious...

That is the most sound bit of logic I have read in a long time. Many frubals!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This was an exercise in my husbands logic class. I'm not trying to make a point, just an exercise to make you think. So remember you can NOT argue that' I'm wrong because the Bible/Preacher/Mom or Dad taught you that G-d was this that or the other.

1. If G-d was all powerful he could get rid of Evil.
2. If G-d was all-loving he would want to get rid of Evil
3. Evil exists

Therefore G-d is either not all powerful or not all loving

The replys to the common arguments with this are way to numerous to post, but if any one wants to post a LOGICAL argument here feel free to do so.

It is my understanding that G-d is transcendent to creation that contains the "tree of knowledge of good and evil".

Being all powerful just means that, all power is of G-d, it doesn't pertain to the application of power.

Being all-loving just means that, all love is of God, it doesn't pertain to application of love.

Evil exists only in relation to good, and good only exists in relation to evil, they are relative terms which define each other. These dualistic complementary opposite concepts of good and evil are mere subjective perceptions of mortal creatures whose existence is within G-d's creation.

But G-d forever remains a transcendent unity and creator of all that exists.

Isaiah 45.7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things
.

 

[Fortunato]

Also, what exactly does "all powerful" entail? Does that mean God could make a round square? Could he exist and not exist at the same time? Could he rewind time and change things? I mean, all-powerful is a weird concept.

Ummm... a round square would be a cylinder (i.e. round when viewed from the top and square when viewed from the side).

 

[tumbleweed41]

1. If G-d was all powerful he could get rid of Evil.

This assumes Evil is a tangible thing that can be eliminated.

2. If G-d was all-loving he would want to get rid of Evil

This assumes the will of God

3. Evil exists

Another assumption that evil is tangible.

Therefore G-d is either not all powerful or not all loving

A lot of assumptions in this "logic"

 

[Caladan]

This was an exercise in my husbands logic class. I'm not trying to make a point, just an exercise to make you think. So remember you can NOT argue that' I'm wrong because the Bible/Preacher/Mom or Dad taught you that G-d was this that or the other.

1. If G-d was all powerful he could get rid of Evil.
2. If G-d was all-loving he would want to get rid of Evil
3. Evil exists

Therefore G-d is either not all powerful or not all loving

The replys to the common arguments with this are way to numerous to post, but if any one wants to post a LOGICAL argument here feel free to do so.

I think the problem is with statements such as 'God is all powerful'. the grey area dimensions of nature and the universe do not reflect an 'all powerful/all loving' deity.. these are obvious human epithets, as the very term 'evil' may be at the end of the day.

 

[CarlinKnew]

The logical rebuttal is obvious...the logic used for the conclusion is based on the accepted premise that evil is bad for us. We don't like evil, but we cannot necessarily say that it isn't the best thing for us at the time when it occurs.

In essence, the second part "If God was all-loving He would want to get rid of evil" is an incorrect conclusion. After all, we (who believe in the Tanakh) know that God created (evil) and if we trust Him and His judgment that means that if we believe He is all-loving, then evil somehow fits into the expression of His love.

Now, suppose you could conclude that God is not all-loving, this doesn't mean that He isn't all powerful. Number 1 and number 2 are entirely separate in relation to number 3.

Evil exists. If God is all-loving then He would want to get rid of evil. Therefore God is not all-loving. (The logic for this does not follow because we assume that the most loving thing would be to get rid of evil).

So evil's existence means that God is not all-loving. That doesn't infer that He isn't all-powerful. The only way to conclude that He is not all-powerful is to know that He is all-loving, and that the most loving thing to do would be to remove evil. And until someone proves that evil is not the most loving thing, they cannot assert that God is neither all-loving nor all-powerful.

Your position is that god allows evil to exist out of love. So, when an innocent child is brutally raped and beaten to death, god allows this to happen out of love for this innocent child? Being raped and beaten to death might be "the best thing" for this innocent child? No, you can't possibly think that.

Perhaps you think that this rape and murder might stand as an example to bring out the best in the rest of humanity? Then I'm afraid he's not all-loving. To sacrifice one for the greater good isn't all-inclusive love, it's selective love.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe that God's holiness and power so transcend our feeble understanding of those concepts that our challenge of them is laughably weak and ineffective.

Kinda reminds me of when I take my dog to the vet. All he knows is that I am loading him up in the car and taking him to a place that smells weird, where strangers stick sharp things into him, hold him down and ram things in his mouth, hurt him, imprison him, and keep him isolated from the people he loves. Now WHY would his mama not only allow this to happen, but actively participate in allowing it to happen????

No matter how much I try to explain it to him, he will never understand the logic and reasoning behind it, because his mind is incapable of grasping it.

 

[Caladan]

I believe that God's holiness and power so transcend our feeble understanding of those concepts that our challenge of them is laughably weak and ineffective.

Kinda reminds me of when I take my dog to the vet. All he knows is that I am loading him up in the car and taking him to a place that smells weird, where strangers stick sharp things into him, hold him down and ram things in his mouth, hurt him, imprison him, and keep him isolated from the people he loves. Now WHY would his mama not only allow this to happen, but actively participate in allowing it to happen????

No matter how much I try to explain it to him, he will never understand the logic and reasoning behind it, because his mind is incapable of grasping it.

Great post Kathryn.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I believe that God's holiness and power so transcend our feeble understanding of those concepts that our challenge of them is laughably weak and ineffective.

Kinda reminds me of when I take my dog to the vet. All he knows is that I am loading him up in the car and taking him to a place that smells weird, where strangers stick sharp things into him, hold him down and ram things in his mouth, hurt him, imprison him, and keep him isolated from the people he loves. Now WHY would his mama not only allow this to happen, but actively participate in allowing it to happen????

No matter how much I try to explain it to him, he will never understand the logic and reasoning behind it, because his mind is incapable of grasping it.

If the dog's owner was all-powerful, the dog wouldn't need to suffer through any of that. The owner could simply wave his magic god-wand, and the dog would be in tip-top shape. That's the all-loving/all-powerful contradiction.

 

[cardero]

This was an exercise in my husbands logic class. I'm not trying to make a point, just an exercise to make you think. So remember you can NOT argue that' I'm wrong because the Bible/Preacher/Mom or Dad taught you that G-d was this that or the other.

1. If G-d was all powerful he could get rid of Evil.
2. If G-d was all-loving he would want to get rid of Evil
3. Evil exists

Therefore G-d is either not all powerful or not all loving

The replys to the common arguments with this are way to numerous to post, but if any one wants to post a LOGICAL argument here feel free to do so.

or...

the premise of evil (Good or bad, right or wrong) is a human-made concept and has nothing to do with GOD or how GOD reacts to it.

 

[Fortunato]

This was an exercise in my husbands logic class. I'm not trying to make a point, just an exercise to make you think. So remember you can NOT argue that' I'm wrong because the Bible/Preacher/Mom or Dad taught you that G-d was this that or the other.

1. If G-d was all powerful he could get rid of Evil.
2. If G-d was all-loving he would want to get rid of Evil
3. Evil exists

Therefore G-d is either not all powerful or not all loving

The replys to the common arguments with this are way to numerous to post, but if any one wants to post a LOGICAL argument here feel free to do so.

Hi, I'm an atheist and find these type of proofs and questions (like why doesn't god heal amputees?) rather interesting and enjoyable. But as regards to your question, I think that a religious person could make a good argument that the error with this logic resides in the second point, which contains an implied contradiction. If the world contained no evil, then would we even have a word for love? Without the concept and existence of evil the idea of all-loving would also cease to exist. How could you then apply a label (all-loving), which no longer exists, to god. Here is an example which better illustrates this:

1. If G-d was all powerful he could get rid of sickness.
2. If G-d was all-healing he would want to get rid of sickness
3. Sickness exists

Therefore G-d is either not all powerful or not all healing. [But how could healing exist without sickness? Getting rid of sickness, eliminates the possibility of being a healer and so the concept of all-healing would therefore be meaningless.]

There is also a problem with the assumption that the 2nd proposition contains. God could be all-loving but still want Evil to exist. It might be the case that if Evil were destroyed, that man might not be able to understand what God's love is like, because he wouldn't have anything to compare it against. Or that god uses evil to punish or teach humanity, but is still all-loving.

Maybe a counter example might illustrate this better:

1. My parents have the ability to eliminate time-outs.
2. If they loved me, they would want to get rid of time-outs.
3. I'm in time-out right now.

Therefore my parents either don't have the ability to eliminate time-outs or don't love me. [I hope you can see the false assumption made in the 2nd proposition, which makes the final conclusion wrong.]

Please let me know if these examples are helpful or not.