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?
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.
If that is so? The bible's claims cancel each other out. Much like an interference pattern in an oscilloscope, the final result is the Null Set.
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.
For every claim one can make that bible's god is "good", you can find equal bible verses proving the opposite.
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.
However, attempting to locate bible verses that support free will? Is nearly impossible, and you have to twist the contextual meaning all out of shape to get even that far.
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.
So. If the bible's god has wound up the Universe, and it's just a Clockwork Engine, winding down, and we are merely Gears in the Great Machine?
That paints a very evil picture of the bible's god-- such a sadistic being-- who deliberately and with intent, engineered things like the Holocaust, and the equally chilling American Native Massacres and Land Theft?
Merely calling the being responsible "evil" is something of an understatement...
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.
