I recently had an enlightening conversation with another blogger, and because the topic is so important, I thought I would copy some highlights over to this blog:
john
1. If God is omniscient, then God knows when, where, and how human suffering will occur if it is not prevented.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to prevent each instance of human suffering.
3. If God is omni-benevolent, then God wants to prevent each instance
4. So, if there exists a God who knows how to prevent human suffering, has the power to prevent it, and wants to prevent it (i.e. if the “3-O” God exists), then human suffering will not occur.
5. Human suffering occurs (relentlessly and ubiquitously).
————-
6. Therefore, the “3-O” God does not exist – and theism is false
poppies
I see the main issue as the definition of “omnipotent”. Omnipotence only has meaning in a context of all *possible* power. Premise #2 I see as faulty.
Does God have the power to create a triangle with no angles? I would think not since such an object is illogical, and since God is the source of logic and reason it would go against his nature.
I think most people agree that choice is a central aspect of a loving relationship, which is apparently a high priority for God in his dealings with humans. For choice to be real and not just apparent the danger of evil choices is necessarily courted. It is impossible and not within the realm of omnipotence to ensure against evil without endangering the precious autonomy of those with whom God wants have a freely chosen relationship.
john
Poppies,
Thank you for that response. I am always looking for insight into this problem that has plaged philosophy and men for quite some time.
The definition of Omnipotence is as follows: “having unlimited power to do anything. For that reason it must follow that God dose have the “power” to eliminate evil. However, I wonder, would it be possible for God to use both moral and natural evil to help the growth of men?–and why?
cool point!
poppies
I question that from having unlimited power to do anything it follows that God “must” have the power to eliminate evil. True, God can do any “thing”, but is eliminating evil in a world of free choice a “thing”, or is it not a “thing” and instead an “impossibility”?
If one says it is a “thing”, then why is this ability a thing but active mutability is not? Surely if God is omnipotent, he has and uses the power to change his nature, right? And, of course, God has and uses the power to be capricious, or evil, or amoral, or non-existent… (note the saracasm in the last two sentences)
You see, when you define omnipotence as the power to do both the possible and the impossible, God ceases to exist since the context provided by possibility and impossibility is lost. Something can only be defined in terms of differentiation from other things, but if there are no logical limits to who God is and what he can do, he ceases to be anything.
john
Poppies,
Thank you for the insight; I understand what you are saying. That seems to be true, it would follow that if God truely were omni-maximum then he would have power to do anything. However, possiblility would be lost, but I ask isnt that a requirement for a supream being. It would follow that if God were supream (unlimited) then he would not require the possible or the impossible?
I think that the point you are making in the last paragraph is very good. I once was working on an argument that was like that, yet why would God require himself to be limitted to the comparisons of other things? I see that it would seem necesary to have weekness define power, but couldn’t God be defined by the same maxim?-which is to say …
1. If God is the greatest then there must be something not so great as to difine his greatness.
or-
1. If God is perfect then imperfection must define his perfection.
2. God is perfect
3. thus, he is defined as such?
I think its a God point but logical limits can be limitless if they are logical… well…one would suppose.
poppies
Ah, you’re onto some very important topics regarding which I’ve only recently come to clarity.
First, I would say in the reply above, you effectively ask “isn’t it a requirement for a Supreme Being to be beyond logic?”, which is something many people think. It’s related to the Euthyphro (apparent) Dilemma, and the correct response is the same: God is bound by logic, by morality, by immutability, by a desire for autonomy in his creatures, by a whole host of things, because he is bound by who He is.
It is not “other things” outside of Himself that God is limited by and defined by, but it is instead his very nature. Being a perfectly unified, non-contradictory, immutable Being, he would cease to be God if ever he acted in contradiction to His nature. Because it is his nature that defines him, he could logically exist alone, with no need to reference weakness, or evil, or the like. It is the error of Dualism to require some outside reference point to define His goodness or power.
I feel it is much more impressive to realize that God does all of His amazing actions within self-defined constraints, rather than His being some random, impersonal (because personality implies a well-defined unchanging nature) force that can knock down the deck and start all over at any time.
Posted by poppies
