Q#2 God doesn't exist by definition

[followerofjesus]

It rains on the just & the unjust. Evil men sometime prosper but its taken away in a blink of a life.

[Questioner]

Questioner,

Have you thought of the one key to your questions (you introduce them as paradox's, but are they?)?

When you put in each one "by definition", you left out a word: human.

So, simply adjust the sentence to read "by our/ human/ mankind's/ etc.. definition" and you can see how our understanding of some of God's ways may be the cause of things we cannot answer currently.

Just for fun, and for thought, check out Deu 29:29 and let me know what you think about it.

Peace,

t.

Appeal to ingnorance.

[Ovedya]

Humans can't create a stone we can lift. What's that supposed to mean, if anything?

[Questioner]

Questioner: It is true for God, because He could use His magic to save everyone. He's omnipotent, he can do that. The police officer and the first guy cannot, so they're excused. God is not excused.

1.

Then God would be obligated to this for EVERYONE, any time something bad happened. Yes, He could save everyone in this way, by making

things disappear the minute someone builds them, or creating force-fields around people every time they're about to do something wrong,

but this would make reality more of virtual prison than the kind of reality we DO have, and that's not omnibenevolent, how would you like

to live in a world like that? That would evil, and not good.

I don't see how having someone protect me all the time could possibly be a bad thing. Why would it be a prison? It wouldn't limit my freedom, it would instead enable me to go on living. The moment of shelter I would get every time I am in danger would be nothing compared to the years of life gained.

Questioner: If God sees everything at once, then everything has already been decided and He can't change it, thus He's not omnipotent.

2.

I don't see how seeing everything all at once means you can't change it. It could just as well be argued that you're present

everywhere and are constantly changing it for the greater good.

In this case you have to add omnipresence to God's characteristics. I agree that defining God as omnimax and omnipresent both in time and space and acting concurrently in every moment of time solves number 2. Congratulations, you broke it ^^ If omnipresence is among the characteristics of the Christian God, then it is on the record that number 2 isn't valid anymore. Good job!

Questioner: Your answer does break the paradox, but it seems very unsatisfying. Killing only the unclean would have been preferable in the eyes of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God.

You didn't answer to this (??) Not a problem, just making sure.

Questioner: That's not the case. I said unnecessary evil. I'm talking about things like forest fires, hurricanes and other things that haven't been caused by humans.

Forest fires, hurricanes, and other disasters could just as well have been allowed by God [all-knowing] for some purpose

that is necessary, but men who are not all knowing cannot discern.

Logical fallacy: appeal to ignorance. You "must" defend properly (if you wish).

[Questioner]

Humans can't create a stone we can lift. What's that supposed to mean, if anything?

Hehehe that's a nice one ^^ Finally someone who can answer jokingly to a joke. What about the serious ones (1..4)? Except 2, which isn't valid if you allow God to be omnipresent.

[Ovedya]

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.

Well this doesn't make any sense to me. To begin with "kill" is a word that I wouldn't attach to God, since it's decidedly negative. Second, who says God doesn;t have the free will to do as He pleases?

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.

Again, who says He can't or doesn't?

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.

There's no logical connection between your conclusion and the definition here. Again, because God does or does not do something which is deemed by you, His creation, as unrighteous, unholy, un...whatever, doesn't mean that He fails the definition. And again, "murder" is, by definition, a human term to describe an unrighteous act.

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).

Your conclusion is that God wants us to suffer, and cannot therefore be omnibenevolent. So His failure to meet the definition is by your standard and your conclusion, not by any objective truth.

[Joshua-777]

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...

Oviously you have a very dim view of God, God is not limited to words, he is loving, and mercyful, but he is a God of justice, his wrath is upon the sons of disobedience, and he is beyond any deffinition, no one truly knows what Good is until they know the Lord.

[systemstrike_7]

The all to famous "God can't be understood by humans" scapegoat. Well, then why do you believe the bible to be infallible if it is incomplete? If God wrote the bible, then, he contradicts himself according to these paradoxes.

You can't have it both ways...

[Joshua-777]

The all to famous "God can't be understood by humans" scapegoat. Well, then why do you believe the bible to be infallible if it is incomplete? If God wrote the bible, then, he contradicts himself according to these paradoxes.

You can't have it both ways...

LOL, you actualy thing God is limited to the bible? God did write the bible, and he doesnt contradict himself, he just makes mans words look like foolishness to those who Know him, and recieve life from him, and to those dying because they do not accept him, it seems like foolishness. Words cannot explain away God, God is above words, and it is not a scapegoat, for I have nothing to prove, I know my God, and he is above all words and above humanity, my mind can't comprehend him, so If you chose to be decieved in variour philosiphys and the empty intent of man to explain away God, then I'm sorry, Your missing what he has to offer, mabie one day you'll open your eyes.

[Ovedya]

The all to famous "God can't be understood by humans" scapegoat. Well, then why do you believe the bible to be infallible if it is incomplete? If God wrote the bible, then, he contradicts himself according to these paradoxes.

You can't have it both ways...

Wrong.

Who said that God can't be understood by humans?

There's a difference between understanding God and being able to comprehend His ways.