Q#2 God doesn't exist by definition

[systemstrike_7]

Well, the traditional response is as follows: man chose to fall, and therefore is responsible for the existence of suffering.

However, I'm not sure. I haven't thought about this issue in a while...if God is omniscient, doesn't that mean he created man knowing he/she would fall? Is that the same thing as creating man TO fall?

I think it probably all goes back to free will. There's a whole branch of theology and writing - theodicy - that deals with the coexistence of God and evil.

I'm interested in your thoughts...this is definitely a subject I'm open on.

I think I would define evil as the absence of God's protection/presence. So God does allow people to suffer.

We should examine this:

1. Is God obligated to prevent everyone's suffering all the time?

2. How much prevention really takes place?

3. A sinful creature is going to have to endure suffering to some extent, there's no escaping it. While in the flesh, there are still consequences

for sins.

4. We're assuming that no good whatsoever can come of suffering.

5. God is not only infinitely loving but also perfectly just. Omnibenevelonce does not negate God's justice.

6. If God is omniscient, and I'm not, which is obviously the case, how am I supposed to determine what evil is 'necessary' and what isn't.

This is a logical fallacy. The finite attempting to judge what only an omniscient being would be able to know.

7. Jesus suffered, and He didn't have to.

1. If he is all-powerful and infinitly loving then yes.

2. I don't quite understand this question. But I would say none.

3. Very true, but as we know all creatures are "sinful" and therefore suffer to some degree.

4. Good can come of suffering, but suffering in itself is bad.

5. But is it fair that he should save some people from suffering and not all people? To be completely just, he would need to have everyone suffer an equal amount, or no one suffer at all.

6. We can observe what suffering has done in the span of someone's life though. If a kid suffers at an early age and it causes him to become a mass murderer, we understand that the suffering was not necessary, but in fact it was completely bad.

7. You're right, he didn't have to, and probably didn't want to.

[tdrehfal]

Well, the traditional response is as follows: man chose to fall, and therefore is responsible for the existence of suffering.

However, I'm not sure. I haven't thought about this issue in a while...if God is omniscient, doesn't that mean he created man knowing he/she would fall? Is that the same thing as creating man TO fall?

I think it probably all goes back to free will. There's a whole branch of theology and writing - theodicy - that deals with the coexistence of God and evil.

I'm interested in your thoughts...this is definitely a subject I'm open on.

I think I would define evil as the absence of God's protection/presence. So God does allow people to suffer.

We should examine this:

1. Is God obligated to prevent everyone's suffering all the time?

2. How much prevention really takes place?

3. A sinful creature is going to have to endure suffering to some extent, there's no escaping it. While in the flesh, there are still consequences

for sins.

4. We're assuming that no good whatsoever can come of suffering.

5. God is not only infinitely loving but also perfectly just. Omnibenevelonce does not negate God's justice.

6. If God is omniscient, and I'm not, which is obviously the case, how am I supposed to determine what evil is 'necessary' and what isn't.

This is a logical fallacy. The finite attempting to judge what only an omniscient being would be able to know.

7. Jesus suffered, and He didn't have to.

1. If he is all-powerful and infinitly loving then yes.

2. I don't quite understand this question. But I would say none.

3. Very true, but as we know all creatures are "sinful" and therefore suffer to some degree.

4. Good can come of suffering, but suffering in itself is bad.

5. But is it fair that he should save some people from suffering and not all people? To be completely just, he would need to have everyone suffer an equal amount, or no one suffer at all.

6. We can observe what suffering has done in the span of someone's life though. If a kid suffers at an early age and it causes him to become a mass murderer, we understand that the suffering was not necessary, but in fact it was completely bad.

7. You're right, he didn't have to, and probably didn't want to.

On number 2, how are you so sure he isn't preventing lots of suffering? There are bad things happening all the time, but surely it could be

a lot worse. And on number 6, suffering at an early age doesn't excuse becoming a mass murderer. You can't just connect the two like that

because TONS of kids have a horrible childhood and yet turn out just fine. It almost sounds as if you're blaming society and not the

murderer.

[systemstrike_7]

Well, the traditional response is as follows: man chose to fall, and therefore is responsible for the existence of suffering.

However, I'm not sure. I haven't thought about this issue in a while...if God is omniscient, doesn't that mean he created man knowing he/she would fall? Is that the same thing as creating man TO fall?

I think it probably all goes back to free will. There's a whole branch of theology and writing - theodicy - that deals with the coexistence of God and evil.

I'm interested in your thoughts...this is definitely a subject I'm open on.

I think I would define evil as the absence of God's protection/presence. So God does allow people to suffer.

We should examine this:

1. Is God obligated to prevent everyone's suffering all the time?

2. How much prevention really takes place?

3. A sinful creature is going to have to endure suffering to some extent, there's no escaping it. While in the flesh, there are still consequences

for sins.

4. We're assuming that no good whatsoever can come of suffering.

5. God is not only infinitely loving but also perfectly just. Omnibenevelonce does not negate God's justice.

6. If God is omniscient, and I'm not, which is obviously the case, how am I supposed to determine what evil is 'necessary' and what isn't.

This is a logical fallacy. The finite attempting to judge what only an omniscient being would be able to know.

7. Jesus suffered, and He didn't have to.

1. If he is all-powerful and infinitly loving then yes.

2. I don't quite understand this question. But I would say none.

3. Very true, but as we know all creatures are "sinful" and therefore suffer to some degree.

4. Good can come of suffering, but suffering in itself is bad.

5. But is it fair that he should save some people from suffering and not all people? To be completely just, he would need to have everyone suffer an equal amount, or no one suffer at all.

6. We can observe what suffering has done in the span of someone's life though. If a kid suffers at an early age and it causes him to become a mass murderer, we understand that the suffering was not necessary, but in fact it was completely bad.

7. You're right, he didn't have to, and probably didn't want to.

On number 2, how are you so sure he isn't preventing lots of suffering? There are bad things happening all the time, but surely it could be

a lot worse. And on number 6, suffering at an early age doesn't excuse becoming a mass murderer. You can't just connect the two like that

because TONS of kids have a horrible childhood and yet turn out just fine. It almost sounds as if you're blaming society and not the

murderer.

Like I said, I didn't quite understand the question, but now that I do, I guess we could credit God for all sorts of stuff that he might have never done. We could say that he prevented a persons suffering in the desert because it happened to rain just in time. But you cannot prove any of this.

But there are cases where that happens, and if God is all powerful and omnibenevolent then he could have stopped that. He could have saved alot of people, for instance, in the case of Jefferey Damer. (sorry can't spell his name)

[Artemus Prime]

Although this has been stated before, I reiterate:

The presence of suffering does not indicate the absence of God.

I would highly recommend reading either Alvin Plantinga or Peter Kreeft as regards to this aspect of the Moral Argument. Blessings, A.P.

[WarMonkeyMan]

This is a quick one. It's a barrage of paradoxes. I sorted them from the weakest to the strongest.

0) This is just for fun If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.

1) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition since either He can't kill, say, Terry Schiavo, or He isn't perfectly good.

2) If God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, God doesn't exist by definition because either He can't change the future or He can't know the future.

3) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because being omnipotent He could have avoided killing small children with the Flood. He instead let only one family live. So either he didn't have the power to save every single good or innocent human or he had that power but murdered innocents.

The Flood is interchangeable with other biblical events, like the destruction of Sodom.

4) If God is defined as omnimax, God doesn't exist by definition because either he doesn't know about the unnecessary evil present in the world (= not omniscient); or he knows about it but can't do anything to eliminate it (= not omnipotent); or he knows about it, could erase it, but doesn't because He wants us to suffer (= not omnibenevolent).

Discuss (if you want to).

Btw, I hope I'm posting in the right forum...

0. If God is omnipotent, then He can do all that can be done. If there's a rock that God makes that He's not powerful enough to lift, then He's not omnipotent. Therefore, for God to be defined as omnipotent, making a rock so big that an omnipotent God can't lift it can't be done. It's a logical fallacy.

1. That's a very bad statement, for several reasons. For one, you're letting what God IS decide whether he exists or not. For two, you're saying that God killed Terry Schiavo.

2. Another bad statement. You're assuming that God claims to know the future or can change the future. God is omniscient; He knows all there is to know. If something hasn't happened, can it be known?

I imagine that God is more like an expert chess player. He knows all the moves, and He's ready for anything. He's wise as wisdom itself, and can easily predict what men will do, but leaves it up to us to choose.

3. You're assuming quite a lot with this argument, and you know what they say about assuming...

First off, you have to answer for the statement God made to Lot about there not being ANY good people in Sodom, and then you've got to find evidence of a world-wide flood, to prove that small children around the world were annihilated. All in all, that's just another bad statement.

4. Again, you're trying to eliminate God by what He IS. You can't define a person or being by their characteristics. It's like me saying, "My dog is black. Since your dog isn't black, it must not be a dog." It doesn't make sense, and it's just ignorant.

1. The unnecessary evil in the world is caused by men.

2. God charges all mankind to love one another. If we all did that, there wouldn't BE any evil.

3. God doesn't want suffering, and provided a way out of suffering into joy and peace.

All in all, Questioner, I'm not impressed.

[MorningGlory]

This is a quick one. It's a barrage of paradoxes. I sorted them from the weakest to the strongest.

0) This is just for fun If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.

1) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition since either He can't kill, say, Terry Schiavo, or He isn't perfectly good.

2) If God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, God doesn't exist by definition because either He can't change the future or He can't know the future.

3) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because being omnipotent He could have avoided killing small children with the Flood. He instead let only one family live. So either he didn't have the power to save every single good or innocent human or he had that power but murdered innocents.

The Flood is interchangeable with other biblical events, like the destruction of Sodom.

4) If God is defined as omnimax, God doesn't exist by definition because either he doesn't know about the unnecessary evil present in the world (= not omniscient); or he knows about it but can't do anything to eliminate it (= not omnipotent); or he knows about it, could erase it, but doesn't because He wants us to suffer (= not omnibenevolent).

Discuss (if you want to).

Btw, I hope I'm posting in the right forum...

0. If God is omnipotent, then He can do all that can be done. If there's a rock that God makes that He's not powerful enough to lift, then He's not omnipotent. Therefore, for God to be defined as omnipotent, making a rock so big that an omnipotent God can't lift it can't be done. It's a logical fallacy.

1. That's a very bad statement, for several reasons. For one, you're letting what God IS decide whether he exists or not. For two, you're saying that God killed Terry Schiavo.

2. Another bad statement. You're assuming that God claims to know the future or can change the future. God is omniscient; He knows all there is to know. If something hasn't happened, can it be known?

I imagine that God is more like an expert chess player. He knows all the moves, and He's ready for anything. He's wise as wisdom itself, and can easily predict what men will do, but leaves it up to us to choose.

3. You're assuming quite a lot with this argument, and you know what they say about assuming...

First off, you have to answer for the statement God made to Lot about there not being ANY good people in Sodom, and then you've got to find evidence of a world-wide flood, to prove that small children around the world were annihilated. All in all, that's just another bad statement.

4. Again, you're trying to eliminate God by what He IS. You can't define a person or being by their characteristics. It's like me saying, "My dog is black. Since your dog isn't black, it must not be a dog." It doesn't make sense, and it's just ignorant.

1. The unnecessary evil in the world is caused by men.

2. God charges all mankind to love one another. If we all did that, there wouldn't BE any evil.

3. God doesn't want suffering, and provided a way out of suffering into joy and peace.

All in all, Questioner, I'm not impressed.

Good points, WMM. Tackling this subject would give most people a migraine!

[WarMonkeyMan]

Good points, WMM. Tackling this subject would give most people a migraine!

It's very bad logic, and it really shouldn't have taken 7 pages for someone to notice. It just needs some clear thinking to sort out what works and what doesn't.

[hatsoff]

Well, the traditional response is as follows: man chose to fall, and therefore is responsible for the existence of suffering.

However, I'm not sure. I haven't thought about this issue in a while...if God is omniscient, doesn't that mean he created man knowing he/she would fall? Is that the same thing as creating man TO fall?

I think it probably all goes back to free will. There's a whole branch of theology and writing - theodicy - that deals with the coexistence of God and evil.

I'm interested in your thoughts...this is definitely a subject I'm open on.

Good. Because I'm about to tell you the correct view.

Just kidding, of course.

Suppose God does exist. Do you further suppose that he conforms to human logic? Do you, for example, think that perhaps for God 2+2=5 (radiohead notwithstanding)?

[The Lorax]

0) This is just for fun If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.

This always gives me a laugh, but only when atheists think it's a serious argument.

1) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition since either He can't kill, say, Terry Schiavo, or He isn't perfectly good.

I do not know that God is omnipotent. I think he relinquished a lot of his power when he created beings with free will.

If God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, God doesn't exist by definition because either He can't change the future or He can't know the future.

I would also contend that, by creating beings with free will, he relinquished his omniscience. Think about it: if God knew what humans will do in the future, then they can't have free will. If something is utterly predictable then it isn't free.

3) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because being omnipotent He could have avoided killing small children with the Flood. He instead let only one family live. So either he didn't have the power to save every single good or innocent human or he had that power but murdered innocents.

See my previous answers.

4) If God is defined as omnimax, God doesn't exist by definition because either he doesn't know about the unnecessary evil present in the world (= not omniscient); or he knows about it but can't do anything to eliminate it (= not omnipotent); or he knows about it, could erase it, but doesn't because He wants us to suffer (= not omnibenevolent).

I don't think God is an omnimax. This to me seems like a philosophical caricature of God. I just think he is very powerful and very knowing, and perhaps maximally powerful and knowing before he created humans. But when you create something like yourself, something unpredictable, suddenly you disrupt the hard determinism that made the universe knowable in the first place. Created God-like beings changed everything for God.

[WarMonkeyMan]

0) This is just for fun If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it.

This always gives me a laugh, but only when atheists think it's a serious argument.

1) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition since either He can't kill, say, Terry Schiavo, or He isn't perfectly good.

I do not know that God is omnipotent. I think he relinquished a lot of his power when he created beings with free will.

If God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, God doesn't exist by definition because either He can't change the future or He can't know the future.

I would also contend that, by creating beings with free will, he relinquished his omniscience. Think about it: if God knew what humans will do in the future, then they can't have free will. If something is utterly predictable then it isn't free.

3) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because being omnipotent He could have avoided killing small children with the Flood. He instead let only one family live. So either he didn't have the power to save every single good or innocent human or he had that power but murdered innocents.

See my previous answers.

4) If God is defined as omnimax, God doesn't exist by definition because either he doesn't know about the unnecessary evil present in the world (= not omniscient); or he knows about it but can't do anything to eliminate it (= not omnipotent); or he knows about it, could erase it, but doesn't because He wants us to suffer (= not omnibenevolent).

I don't think God is an omnimax. This to me seems like a philosophical caricature of God. I just think he is very powerful and very knowing, and perhaps maximally powerful and knowing before he created humans. But when you create something like yourself, something unpredictable, suddenly you disrupt the hard determinism that made the universe knowable in the first place. Created God-like beings changed everything for God.

That's a very nice post you've got there, sir.

0. Quite. It's really a bit sad, isn't it?

1. Well, that all depends on how you think of it. Did God relinquish His power, or is He merely not using it? Our free will doesn't really impede on God's power. In fact, the Bible records cases of people being possessed by demons and losing their free will to the spirit. That certainly puts more power in favor of spiritual beings instead of in the free will of man.

2. Again, that all depends on how you define omniscience. Is it possible to know something that hasn't happened?

Like I said, I think of God as more of a chess master, who can know what CAN happen and what He can do to respond in the right way.

3. Omnipotent, I can see where you're coming from. Where does omnibenevolence fit into your statement?

4. The main argument I can think of now for that is that we were created in the IMAGE of God, not really God-like. We must work to be godly, while our image is given to us. With sin in our lives, we're not God-like at all.