God is not all-powerful.
 

Here is something I thought of the other day:

God cannot both be all-good and all-powerful.

Take the Holocaust, a clearly horrible tragedy in which 12 million were mercilessly slaughtered due to the will of an evil dictator.

God did not intervene.

This leads to three possibilities:

1. God wanted the Holocaust to happen: God, for some reason, MADE the Holocaust happen. It was His will. But clearly a good God would not murder 12 million of His creations, especially after that whole rainbow-covenant thing, if you believe that stuff.

2. God did not intervene for some reason: One reason or another, God decided not to intervene. However, it seems odd that a good God would be apathetic to such a situation. Thus the only likely solution for this possibility is the "clockmaker" God, who created the universe but now does not intervene in events, or only works "small" miracles. Yet then, God would have restricted His powers and thus would no longer be all-powerful. But if God does not intervene at all, why pray at all? Unless he still works small miracles. Just don't ask for world peace :crazy:

3. God could not intervene: God was powerless to stop Adolf Hitler, for some reason. Perhaps He cannot exert such a large influence, or perhaps something else. Or perhaps He is gone. Or stripped of His powers. Or being held captive in a God-power-proof prison. Or never existed at all. The point is, if this is the case, clearly He is not all powerful.


What does everyone else have to say? Am I overlooking something? Personally, I believe the clockmaker idea, but would be interested to hear other interpretations.

No Bible stuff, please.

God gave man free will. He knew what the outcome would be, the Allies would win. Good triumphed over evil..... It could have very easily have had a different outcome.

IMHO, God allows evil like the Holocaust but gives man the chance to detroy it. Whether we do or not is up to us.

What lessons would we learn if God always interferred?

We have to learn for ourselves so that we may grow and learn from the past.

He's like a parent and we the children, yes he could spank and call time outs, or he can allow us the freedom to learn and to correct ourselves.

We made it this far, I don't think we are doing too badly.

an excellent point.

But would God really simply sit there and watch as millions of helpless people died? I mean, it wasn't the prisoners' faults!

Also, if God knew the Allies would win, that would mean that there is destiny. If there is destiny, we'll never have time travel, or someone would have shown up by now :(

I don't think God could know what is going to happen, as that is the unknowable. Even if He does, at some point he must not have known.

Of course there's the argument that God lives outside the universe, but then, prayer wouldn't "reach" him correctly... if he has already experienced the future, he cannot change the past without changing its future, perhaps killing future people with a prayer He answers.

Why should God care about what happens to us on this tiny little planet, a mere mote in the zastness of the universe? How many other planets might there be with other forms of intelligent life on them, the odds (depending on who you talk to) suggest the number is going to be very high indeed. 12 million slaughtered? It would be like nothing more than seeing a spider eat a fly - would you interfere if you saw a bird eat a worm, or a dog chase a cat? How often would you have to interfere if you wanted to impose your own version of justice in the small space around you, say in your own house and garden? You don't give a damn about the bugs that creep and crawl in your lawn, why should you, and why should God?

The example of Christ teaches us that as brutal and evil as we are to one another in this reality, there is a greater reality where such things are of little or no importance.

Of course if you look at "good" as something purely subjective then it clears everything up.

Seeing something like this reminds me of what C.S. Lewis wrote in GOD IN THE DOCK. I've inserted [man] for some clarification in the quote that is apparent from the context of the statements:

"The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man, the roles are reversed. He [man] is the judge: God is in the dock. He [man] is quite a kindly judge; if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god that permits war, poverty and disease, he [man] is ready to listen. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the bench and God in the dock."

To ask the question posed here (or those of that nature) are to assume the role of Judge over the Creator.

Why wouldn't prayer 'reach' him correctly? You're assuming that God has to play by His own rules, no? For that matter what rules? How does prayer reach God correctly in the first place? What stops him from 'hearing' them once he steps outside of time....?

As to the destiny/free will thing, I'll just say, I think maybe God (again, assuming that he exists) is just a really good judge of character. He didn't know that the Allies would win WWII because that's the way he planned it, but rather he knew the people involved and was sure that they would make the decisions they did to end it. He's just playing a guessing game, but since he's all-knowing and all-seeing (according to books were not supposed to mention) then he's not just a good guesser, he's an infallable guesser. Is it still free will if someone else knows with certainty what you'll do?

The Judeo-Christian God isn't human, and his understandings and moralities may be beyond our understanding. That's a non answer, but it's what the bible gives us.

Hrmmm, not exactly correct or incorrect.

If anything, the Bible tells us that we are very intimately related to God:

First off, can I please chide you in your qualifying statement:
I want you to clarify that statement. Shall I talk about the sun without using the keywords :Warm, Bright, or Star? Is this a game of Taboo?
Are you suggesting that an argumnet that refers to the Bible is not worth reading, or are you trying to keep this discussion in the realm of scientific philosophy, using postulates and reductions of logic?

No, I am not about to quote scripture, but since my understanding of a higher power comes from the New International Version of the Bible, can I still participate in the discussion? If so, let me continue:

Who says God did not intervene? You are making a broad statement, and I am putting the justification back on you. Please prove to me that God did not intervene. Maybe he did. Maybe he prevented the slaughter of millions more, but you and I could never know that, because we were not there, and cannot begin to understand the ways in which God works.

No, I believe in the whole "Free will" scenario, and Hitler (along with the Nazi party) were exercising their fucked-up-sense-of-free-will.



I agree most with this argument, but would re-word the explanation entirely.

Yes, God created the universe.

No, God does not intervene in events. Not because God can't, but because God knows everything, front and back, inside and out. God knows every atom, where it has been, where it is, and where it will go. God has seen it all, and has a Grand Plan worked out. Your questioning God's powers works into the plan, believe it or not. It all comes together at the end. With the end seen as Good, and as according to God's plan, there is no need to intervene in the rest, unless it is in THE PLAN.

In my theological perspective, that is simply not the case. Personally, I belive the following:

God can intervene, but doesn't, because it is all acccording to plan.
God is all powerful, and can intervene, for any reason.
God can exert such influence to affect anything, at any time. There is no such thing as "Too large an influence" to God.
God is here. Right now. With you and me. And that sick little kid in Bangladesh who is starving to death as I type these words, God is with that child.
The idea of God being stripped of powers, or in a "God-Proof" anything does not compute in my logic. It simply cannot happen, like the square root of a negative number. It is something to imagine, but does not work out.

Well. That is all. God allowed the Holocaust (and every other bad thing that has ever happened to anyone, ever) to happen because it works out in the End, which God has seen. We cannot comprehend this. We look up and question, like a child to a parent... "Why are you so mean? Why won't you help me? Where were you when I needed you?"

The parent smiles, and knowing that everything has a purpose, cannot explain it to the child. "I did that to show you that I love you. You will understand when you are older."

Oh, I overlooked this.

I must also question this request.

You are supposing to talk about God and you are asking posters to ignore a primary way in which some us understand our relationship with Him/Her.

Would you also ask people talking about Politics to not mention political parties?

What about other religous texts? Can I use the Qur'an? The Book of Mormon? The Veda? The Satanic Bible?

Well Labell, now that you mention it....

Ya, you're real certain on the message board, I dare you to say it to His face.

Please don't confuse a failure to mention for exclusion.

I didn't use those examples simply because they are not how I personally know God.

Glad a few people noticed the irony.

But if we made that rule, too many heads would asplode in "Politics"...

:lol: :lol: :lol: well said!!

That's why I believe in the clockmaker thing.

This question has been posed since before the time of Christ, most famously by Epicurus. You've mentioned the Holocaust, but that is pretty easy to get around by simply citing free will as some have done here.
What's not so easy to get around are the existence of natural disasters. What kind of God would allow an innocent child to suffer while simultaneously allowing evil men to prosper? To simply say that "God works in mysterious ways" is a cop-out. Invoking Karma leads to many problems as well.
The only real way to get around this problem while still holding to a belief that God exists is to modify the usual definition of God, most commonly by changing the definition of what it means to be "all-good" or "all-powerful".
You can hold onto the possibility of a "clockmaker" God, but as you say, there's really no point in it if God is uninterested anyway.

Jehovah has given man free will. This world is in the power of the wicked one, not Jehovahs, that is why things are ravaged as they are. Jehovah doesn't like to see suffering, he hates it and detests it, but he can't do anything about it for this time, for the devil did say to him that these men and women only follow you for what you can do for them, not because they love you. If we had miracles happening around us left right and center.. would it then become a question of faith for 'man'? If 'man' could see around him that Jehovah did exsist, then do you think that there would be more following him or less? This is why Jehovah remains hidden until the chosen day. To prove to the devil that we can love him for who he is, not what he can do for us :) So in a way, your third point is correct, his hands are tied for the moment.


And what happened to the original poster? O_o

Philosophers have attempted to answer the 'natural disasters' objection; I haven't really read heavily in the field, so I only know of one attempt off-hand. Alvin Plantinga argues that it is possible that, were we not sinful, we'd know when natural disasters were going to strike. I suppose it's also possible that we'd avoid building cities in disaster prone areas.

I hate to be anal, but 12 million in the third reich's final solution scenario? Did the numbers change or am I wrong in remembering that it was 6 million. again I hate to thread jack from the current philosophical discussion for a detail... my aopologies

My personal answer to natural disasters is that the reality of life has hardships. Floods, earthquakes and typhoons happen along with sunshine, warm spring days and soft summer showers. They also happen to the good and bad alike. Therefore, they are not a reward or punishment or indeed, anything. They just are. They can cause suffering or happiness. To me, it is what we do with this suffering or happiness that matters. And again, using the example of Christ, this suffering/happiness is transformed at the end of all things and we never have to worry about it again.

If you accept that there is a God and an afterlife - and that the spiritual nature of being is eternal while the body is transient - then you might consider that all the events of our physical lives contribute little to the quality of our entire existance. That we suffer and die are consequences of our actions and interactions in physical life.

For instance, "Evil" (for lack of a better word) lies in the heart and soul of the murderer and takes its toll on the quaility of his/her spiritual life. Those who suffer and die will find ultimate peace in the afterlife (or the next life - depending on your beliefs). Why does God need to intervene?

I find it hard to see how people ignore this issue. It's an obvious problem with the god hypothesis.

For more sophisticated arguments around this question - you might want to check Wikipedia under the entry "the problem of evil". I stumbled on this recently, just re-checked, and it has references to a fair bit of serious thinking around the issue.

Not my area of interest really... but I'm sure it'll be of use. As I said... it looks fairly comprehensive.

The square root of a negative number is i or -i.

God is on trial. Being an all-powerful creator is not an excuse for evil. Dictated morality based on threats and force is no morality at all.

For the most part, my personal political views are not determined by political parties. The political parties in power are, at best, failed approximations of an ideal. So talking about politics without talking about political parties is quite doable.

As for loving Jehova for what Jehova is: The existence of religions which are not accurate is certain. There exists a false religious dogma. Is there a way to prove your religious scripture is true? If not, there is no reason not to believe your religion's dogma is a lie.

In the case of Jehova, there are multiple contradicting religions build around the "same" diety -- most all with the requirement that their followers consider the competing religions as worshipping a false god.

So we have a diety who will not provide proof that she/he exists, yet insists that we get the religion we worship correct. If you want to follow the parenting analogy, that's just messed up.

More than just jews died in the holocaust. Political opponents, homosexuals, gypsies...

This is flawed logic. Why would a good god nessecarily be more proactive. Remember first that the concept of good and evil are creation of mankind. We cannot reasonably place expectations on divine beings. If you mean "by our definition of good", it's still flawed. Good people are often put into situations where they do NOT do the right thing, and not out of inability or lacking of goodness. Also, you come full circle in the partial debate of, if an omnipotent being put forth a limitation on his own powers, would he be able, in his omnipotence to restore those powers unto himself? Hmmm...

This logic is also flawed. What you posit here has nothing to do directly with destiny. If time travel were to exist, then theoretically, someone would have shown up by now destiny or not. How do you know they haven't? How do you know where we are on the line of forward moving time? Or is time cyclic? If it is both linear and infinite, there is a front to it as it moves along. Suppose we are AT that front. It's no more or less likely than us being in the front car of a train, the 6th car or the 9th. Who's to say?

To throw my opinion into the mix, I vote for an all powerful god, but a god that wants to let us find things out for ourselves. I suppose I best think of it in terms of a parent-toddler relationship. The parent isn't going to let the toddler do anything seriously dangerous like fall down a flight of stairs or electrocute themselves (hopefully not at least). Allowing the toddler to find simple things out for themselves is one of the key parts of growth and development.

After all, according to most religions arent we merely toddlers in god's universe?

???

I don't see anyone here ignoring this issue.

What you talkin' 'bout, Willis??

I think the answer is either...

#1 God does not exsist.

or

#2 God does not care.

Either way he/she/it can be safely ignored.

Many people who believe in some form of "God" also understand that His purpose isn't the elimination of suffering and death on Earth.

Much of theology is about trying to explain the purpose of suffering, death and tragedy on Earth. If you are inclined to believe in an afterlife is it not concievable that suffering is a trial and death is a passage?

If some greater power such as god is watching over us he thinks of us the same way we think of insects. god would be a greater being far advanced compaired to us why would he care what we do? Do any of you stop and worry about the thousands of cans of Raid that get sprayed killing millions of ants or bees or termites or anything else every day? why would god think of us in any higher respect then that we give to insects. What about the forests that we clear every year to build homes for ourselves? or better yet what about the fields of crops we grow cut down destroy and replant every year? what makes one form of life more important or deserve more attention then the next from god? they are all creations of god if a god even exists. Maybe god didnt want to stop WW2 and all the horrible crap people do to eachother because... people dont deserve the help. maybe god thinks we should die off but is just too nice to do anything about it and figures in time we will kill ourselves off and the world will go back to a more natrual balanced state.

Isn't the initial post the premise of the old book "when bad things happen to good people?" I'm pretty sure the author's reasoning is the same and he also concludes that God does not have the capability to control individual events.

I question the idea that "God knew the allies would win" - does this mean he had some hand in the allies winning or just that he knows the future? If the former, then I would be very disappointed in God (assuming I believed in him) - he could have let the Allies win much sooner and saved millions of innocent lives. If the latter, I'm not sure the relevance to this discussion.

Can't believe the thread godwinned itself with the first post.

I wish people would just realize there's no God, no Jesus, and no Santa or the Easter Bunny and call it a day.

But of course this means that God is not all-good.

I think you lack the knowledge, as we all lack what it would mean to do the right thing when you're all knowing, all good, and all powerful.. We are limited we see hitler we're like oh no bad... but God is all knowing, so he sees hitler every possible out come etc.. blah blah blah... So basically due to ignorance, adn other things, we cannot pass judgement on an all knowing being.

Furthermore I think you mistake God's purpose for us here on Earth. If God just killed everyone who was born evil, what then is the point of free will? If God is to say that he has given us choice, then he must allow us to choose against him. And to allow only good things to happen wouldnt' allow for that to be the case. For example if all you knew was good, then how can you say that you would choose God, God must offer us a choice, given us only one choice good, is no choice at all. He must allow evil to be known, understood, and choosable.

Furthermore God is not going to do a miracle every time somethign bad happens, he's not going to prove himself to the world just because some nut wants to go play dicatator. However, God will intervene for those who trust in him, and beleive in him so long as it doesn't contradict with his plans. Furthermore i think the best way to look at this is to use an analogy of Adam and Eve in the garden with the tree. If God didn't have that tree there then how can you say Adam and Eve were choosing God... They would have been only be choosing God, becuse they were only given that choice, thus God allowed for the tree to exist their.

Lastly a mistake you make about God letting people die, yes killing is wrong; however there is more to life than here on Earth. Though that is not justify murder, it's just looking at the bigger picture.

God makes it so that we'll believe in him by his Truth that he spoke not by the fact you're like look he stopped that flood let's worship him because now we know he exists, and we don't want to go to hell. What kind of followers is taht. Rather have follower who believe in him based on his word of truth, and recognize that as right.. this was if they can know and trust him without seeing, imagine when they are with him.

It seems to me that God plays both sides of the ball. To God we are individuals, not corporate entities (i.e. Allies, ect.). God was at work in Hitler's life. We have to assume that Hitler's choice was to ignore the voice of God in his life. God was also at work at the same time in the lives of those impacted by Hitler's chooices. Ergo, God plays both sides of the ball. Then the victims of the Holocaust were presented with their God-choice. The same thing happens in our lives today. Through the ever-changing realm of our choices and consequenses, we are faced with the choice to seek and listen to God's will, or ignore it and accept the consequences. We are,as individuals, only responsible for our own responses and choices.

Death as does life, serves a purpose. We may not understand or know what that purpose is, but in many situations tragic events have lead to lessons learned and to the greater good of the human race.

I believe to God we are both individuals and a part of a whole. The collective spirit of the human race still has much to learn. We will have to experience some painful lessons because of our stuborn will.

It really doesn't matter where it can be proven to you, it matters that you realise that for them it is their reality. It is a big part of who they are.

It is you that must realise that to lose yourself in trying to confirm your own world you can never understand others.

I don't believe in a literal God but I do believe that for many it is a reality and it is how they justify and rationalise their very existance. I understand it is important for me to understand, just because I can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist for them.

God in the end is as powerful as the believer sees him to be. Faith is about just that and the degree of faith can be easily seen as how much they question Gods actions.

So if a believer in God is questioning his motives or actions we are learning about the questioner and his faith.

This thread is about discovering and understanding the faith and beliefs the others have as we have discovered about you.

Only god can answer the question posed in this thread and I don't know what his TFP name is -yet!

I'm not sure there is anything in there stateing that God is "All Good". All good things are God, maybe. But, it does state that "Everything serves God's will", so that would mean God is all good AND all bad. If you believe he is all powerful.

Nope. I think you are way out of bounds on this call. God didn't want it to happen. A short little murderous fucktard wanted it to happen. Freewill is a bitch. Enough people went along with it that clearly a lot of people wanted it to happen, otherwise, it wouldn't have, and, as per the whole free will thing, God stayed out of it, and let us deal with our own actions. God didn't make it happen. We did. Humans. And us alone. Not one of our finer moments, if you ask me.

I really doubt God was apathetic to it. I think he was crying his eyes out. I don't think he liked it, but with that kind of power comes a level of self controle, that as much as he hated it, he stayed out and let freewill run it's course.


That is kind of hard to do, given the topic.

But if God will not intervene, why pray?

It's my belief that while God will not pick you up, he will let you lean on him.

God is timeless--so he sees the bigger picture. What seems horrific in the short term--eons of human history--will have an effect over time. I believe that which we don't understand, nonetheless, serves a higher purpose--and that purpose is good.

Just as a thought, perhaps "God" will intervene if you pray. Just because you don't see it happening immediately doesn't mean that "God" isn't helping, watching, protecting, etc.

Heh...can you imagine...this coming from a Wiccan. ;) :lol: ;)

I believe God is all powerful, but not "all good".....I do realize that you don't want bible references...But if you look back in the bible, on more than one occassion, people died, were persecuted, etc....Sodom and Gomorra :sp:....The Egyptian army being drowned, when chasing Moses and his people....etc...Job was considered a great man of God, and God allowed everything he had to be taken from him...

That is from the bible....the book that Christians are to live from...and even in IT everything that happened wasn't "good"...

Just a lil info from my worthless opinion...

-Will

Not ALL of prayer is supposed to be "asking for something"...Part of prayer is supposed to be thanks, repenting for sins, praise, and worship....

Also, alot of "prayers being answered" depends on what you pray for. I am a strong Christian, and I can pray for rain until I'm blue in the face...But it'll happen when its supposed to happen...

But praying for "God's will to be done" is what one "should" pray for. The rest is supposed to revolve around the faith that He IS all knowing, and we are to trust him...

-Will

Sure...

The original issue raised was "God cannot both be all-good and all-powerful".

(I guess that "all-good" is kind of undefined... I'm not sure what is meant exactly by that term).

I take your point, but I think that it's unrelated to the original paradox - in that, and I simplify slightly, it seems to remove the first condition. If god is longer all-good, in relation to observable events, then there is no problem with the original statement.

I guess I was looking at how the question was framed.

My surprise was related to the implication that a person could avoid examining this question when first exposed to religion and/or philosophy. Of course.... I don't know, maybe the initial poster only just recently started down a that religious or philosophical path. I could understand, in those circumstances, why they'd suddenly come up with the question.

And sure... TFP'ers are debating it - but I was talking about the wider world.

Right, so here's how I see it.

Let me preface this by defining my beliefs as strong agnostic. Worded plainly this means that I believe that there may well be a higher power, but the nature of such a higher power is ultimately unknowable. Thus, any arguments I present are purely an outsider's perspective, as I don't follow any established religion.

Having said that :

The holocaust is a common example of God's failure to intervene. But there are a few salient points that can be used to debate this.

First off, He has been keeping a low profile for the last two thousand years or more, depending on who you talk to. He sent His only son to the cross for our sins, then He said 'okay, you have your proof. Junior died so that you could be reborn. Do with that what you will.' The reason for this is that He requires his followers to have faith. He wants us to love Him in all His glory not for what he can do for us, but for who He is and what He has done already. If I knew God existed, you can bet I would start praying. I would want to assure my place in heaven and I would want a few miracles of my own. A Christian will say that this is exactly why He doesn't make it obvious. In that case it's not a true love of God. It's just my own self-interest, which isn't what He wants.

He could've intervened in a very direct fashion (striking Hitler with a bolt of lightning or what have you), but if He did free will would ultimately be removed. We would no longer make the choice to follow Him because there would no longer be a choice to make.

Having said that, I suggest you talk to some holocaust survivors. I am sure there are a great many who will tell you they would not have survived but for the grace of God. He did not save the lives of 6 million. How many did He save? That question is by it's very nature unanswerable.

On top of that, everything has also served a greater plan. What is it that He intended us to learn from that history? What came out of the war that would not have occured if it didn't happen? A great many of the technological advances that greatly enhance our lives today are either direct or indirect consequences of that war. Where would our lives be today without it?

Another question that's ultimately unanswerable.

Now away from the form answers and onto my own personal beliefs.

My beliefs hinge on the idea of subjective morality. What is good or evil? Can you define it for me? If the Axis had won the war, do you think we would all be claiming today that the bad guys won?

History is always written by the victors.

Given that, my concept of good hinges on my own knowledge and experiences. It is a product of my upbringing and my past. It's a highly individual thing.

God (using the term for lack of a better one; take it to mean 'the higher power') does not have an upbringing as such and may have access to knowledge far beyond what any mortal man is capable of. Given that, is it so unreasonable to postulate that His idea of good and evil may be radically different from yours or mine?

You give your dog shots to protect her from illness. The dog doesn't know the benefit of the shots and only knows that they hurt. You think getting your dog immunized against illnesses is a good thing.

How do you think your dog feels about it?

many times i've learned god provides insight into his workings for a person, sometimes at a much later date, or doesn't even bother ever. holocaust must be a lesson of some kind. Thats my only guess. I'd like to know the reason it was allowed for certain also. Doubt that i will though.

Sorry, I knows this isn't the answer you want...But I try to live by the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of the bible....Just in reference to a "definition" of good and evil...I'm a Christian, so, at least for me, that is my "dictionary" :).....

And yes, I do realize that some of the issues we face today were not present in the times the bible was written, and IMHO, that is up to each individual to determine (on how they feel)...I try to "offer" my religion to anyone, but not "force" it on anyone...


And ask for the holocaust...I'm a Christian, and I have no answer...I feel that we are not meant to know everything...Because we have been taught that we are to have faith, and that he will test our faith. And if He were to explain everything to us, then what need would there be for "faith"?

Not arguing with anyone, just offering my thoughts :)

-Will

I’m not a Bible thumper by any means and I know I’m not supposed to use the bible as a reference for this thread but the book of Job somewhat explains this topic. I guess if you look at God as all powerful and all knowing how could we possibly even begin to understand the things that he does and does not do. :hmm:

But, if God did know everything that's going to happen, and it's all according to his plan, wouldn't that eliminate the idea that humans have free will?

If He has everything laid out for us, and if He knew every decision we will make, then we're just following a narrow track, and not truly making our own decisions.

That's a fairly complicated reply.

Ok. IMHO the simple view of god deserves to down in flames. I see it as self-evidently flawed and as a stepping-stone to simplistic philosophy and morals based on literal interpretation of religious texts.

But that's not your describing. Your talking a more sophisticated model. I'm an atheist myself actually. I feel that I've examined thinking roughly similar to what you outline earlier in my life. To me, this seems a dead end - a way of salvaging "God" when no evidence exists. The arguments proposed ultimately seem so complex as to be unlikely (taking an Occams Razor approach) and in discussions with believers - similar views and concepts appear to take a constantly mutating form in order to dodge the many arguments against believing in a deity.

Ultimately - I think the affirmative should prove it's case, not the other way around.

But.... getting back to my first point. I rarely debating God with those who have this type of view. Anyone with a complex world-view who is willing to debate it genuinely is ok with me. In fact... (in my view again), lots of good has come of the more sophisticated religious thinkers.

So - with people such as yourself, I've no desire to threaten your religion, I'll tend to discuss politics, climate change and other interesting issues.

Perhaps also... having decided that God either doesn't exist or is not relevant, long discussions about God's nature seem a waste of time.

But God lets toddlers kill each other yes? Allows them to kill each other over arguments relating to the correct form of the parent? Allows them to drown in big waves... even creates the world in such a way that volcanoes will form, cause waves and hence said drownings.

I liked your view at first, but on second glance, I don't think that the parent-toddler model applies.

Gaa.....

I would be killed if I made that argument about the housework.

Yes I created the mess.

I can clean it - but don't, because it is not part of my plan

I have the power to do it

I have the ability to do any of the housework at any time

I am right here right now. See that mold that is growing on the wall. I am with that mold right now. See that fly that is about to land on last nights left-overs. I am with those left-overs.

You say that I never do the housework. That is not correct. I did the dishes last week. Not all of them you say? Well perhaps.. But I did intervene. It could have been a lot messier if I hadn't washed those spoons.

You will understand it all. Later. I did those dishes to show that I love you. I cannot explain any more. You will understand when you are older.

So - god allows suffering, in order to prove a point to a rival?

What if God is all-powerful, and all-good.

But we don't understand what good is. Turns out that everything that has ever happened is a good thing.

Can we allow tradeoffs? If god wanted to create a being who is truely free willed, can god let that individual do evil and still be doing good -- because the existence of free will in that being is a greater good than revoking the free will and preventing the evil?

If good and evil exist somehow independant of god, and if "free will" is defined as a being whose choices are not determined by god, then god must withdraw control in order for the good of "free will" to exist. This would include disasters, like volcanos, that kill large numbers of "free will" beings -- preventing the volcano eruption and protecting the beings who freely chose to live near it would be an act that reduces the free will of those beings.

If you disagree with "good" vs "evil" existing independantly of god, then it only makes sense that the deity defines good by it's actions. It is good for god to allow two toddlers to kill each other because it is god who did, or did not, do it. Once again, not a problem.

Leto - 6 million Jews. As far as others/total, figures have been given between 12-21. I dont have the answer, being Jewish has brought this question to the forefront of my thinking. I believe in God but I struggle with this question. Not really anything to add.

Slap that together with Paul's writings to a church in Rome and you get more than you need to understand this dliemma/paradox/etc.

doesn't make much sense when you read them in context of modern renditions of "free" will.
If, however, you begin to understand that humans are now free to act according to their nature, and that their nature is inherintly sinful, then you would begin to think that that humans will only do "evil" or "bad" things if left to their own desires. That is, free will means that humans are left to wallow in their sinfulness, not that they can indvidually elect between a good course of action or a bad one. In fact, the scriptures and history are overflowing with examples of how this operates.

Then we have the gem that people will only do good things when they have the gift of grace. Although, some ungifted people will do good things, those things aren't truly good to the deity and are often resulting from one looking out for one's own interest...which wouldn't be construed as objectively or pure good (altruism). Branches of philosophy have battled out how and why people practice altruism.

This modern view of humankind is in contrast to the pre-sin view of the perfect creation: adam (man, being, whathaveyou). Whereas this perfect being, as such, had perfect freedom of the will, exactly like the deity possesses free will, that is, a will to do that which is in accordance with his own will. That's a bit muddles, but the gist is that a perfect being is bound to act according to how the deity sees fit. In short, the deity can not possibly do wrong since the deity controls the definitions and can not act abrasive to its own nature and desires.

So how could the first perfect being "sin"?
My only resolution of this comes from the notion that the deity intentionally split the perfect being, as explained in the book of origins (while allowing it to be a mythological explanation--and this labeling it as "mythology" in no way detracts from the factual truth or non-truth of the events, but merely clarifies that the text is a way of understanding human history). The deity split the perfect being into two: a man and a woman, thereby rendering the aforementioned perfect being into two imperfect entities. And then the course of history was set, what with eve's inability to only consider the will of the deity as her own, being an individual now. and adam not with his wife, doing his individual desires in some other spot, unable to counteract the disasterous effects of her personal choice to violate the will of her creator and the other half of her being.

And so we learn the lesson of our inconsequentiality, and our individualistic tendencies when left alone, both when we fail to take into consideration the motives and needs of the group (which would be extremely important to a tiny ethnic group in nomadic times) and the needs of the creator (also important if one were to understand this strain of religion as socially cohesive and necessary to the continued existence of the group that we now understand as "jews" or "hebrews")

and then we wonder just why in the hell all this happened, why didn't Adam stay as adam rather than Adam and Eve. And for that we have to look at a bunch of stuff, but we can really get an answer right from one of the most prolific writers and translators of this worldview into the gentile consciousness--Paul.

dang, I gotta go. This is a lot to read anyway, but basically paul claims that people will just act like sinful creatures, as he did, until grace comes upon them and compels them to see the truth. This is all for the deity's glory.

The reason the first being to sin could sin was because he, and all beings with free will, had two inclinations, one towards the good in itself, and one towards the good for him. He got confused, and desired his own good over the good in itself, and so sinned. How's that?

The problem I see with that is twofold:

1) adam didn't sin, Eve did. Your premise is inaccurate, but I read it as your reasoning for why Eve may have sinned originally to move on to

2) "all beings with free will" do not have two inclinations. To argue that would be to argue that the deity, also a being with free will, has two inclinations--one to do its own will and one to go against its own will.

As far as I've been able to take it, that's not logically possible.
I'd have to go back to some church history books to see the lineage, but I'm wagering off-hand that the notion humans have free will, in the sense that they have two sets of inclinations to choose from, crept into some doctrines around the same time rationalism took hold.

I don't know the exact point of departure, but the early churches definately taught and believed that humans had no other kind of will other than to sin unless they were prevented from doing so by the deity. And the notion that one could have two sets of inclincations and must choose between the two on a daily or individual incident (case-by-case) would contradict many of the points the figurehead of the christian religion made about serving two masters simultaneously.

A few points:

1. Predetermination. There is no free will. If someone wants to point out some kind of scripture saying you have free will, I'm all ears.

2. Even years of suffering is nothing compared to enternity. No matter how short, long, painful or enjoyable your life is, it is nothing to your eternal reward.

3. Why should letting people die be bad? God is the benchmark for good. There is nothing more good, by deffinition.

</devil's advocate>

This entire thread amazes me. No one dares change their "beleifs" in light of the apparent *Evidence.

Try this on for size. GOD is a cruel %^&&&$^% who "planned for 12 million people" to die at the hands of a tortuous bunch of Nazi's. (ok it doesn't work for me either)

or


God isn't actually there... We are alone in space on a rock with atmosphere and the only beings that could have stopped the Nazi's were the other "humans" on this planet.

When I say All of the *Evidence I mean this:

1. There is NO evidence that God intervened in any way, nothing supernatural was reported by anyone... still 12 million people died

2. There is also no evidence of a plan... the world is in Chaos...

3. Even if there is a God (remember there is no proof) there is no indication that he/she cares for this world. So at best God is absent (hence the lack of evidence)

4. To say that everything will be OK after we die and go to heaven defies any rational thinkg at all. It only means that YOU do not have to stand up and say, "HEY STOP KILLING THOSE 12 MILLION PEOPLE" since God will do it for you. (bit he/she didn't say anything)

5.Just because you get a warm feeling when people talk about God and his love for you does not mean there is a God. People from all religions get the same "warm feelings" that christians get all the time.

Not true. God is the good in itself, so the good for him is identical to the good in itself. This is ultimately true for all of us, but we can get easily confused.

This idea is something I'm getting from Scotus, in which he is deeply influenced by Anselm. I might mention that the 'being' I was referring to is proximately the devil. Traditional theology (by which I mean primarily Thomistic) holds that our only impulse is towards the good in itself. Scotus's objection is that this fails to explain how the devil fell, because he knew the good in itself. He argues that what must have happened is that the devil came to love himself more than God (the good in itself), and in this way fell.

Special Note: If you happen to not believe in a literal devil, think of this as a thought experiment...

If there is a god, he, she, or it probably thinks we all have better things to do than speculate on the People Magazine details of his existence.

Most of the major religions agree on the basics of a good life: love and support your fellow humans, help the good in yourself to flourish, leave your piece of the world in better shape than you found it in.

Do all that, and both you _and_ God -- be it a Hairy Thunderer, Cosmic Muffin, whispy Celtic Deitress, or artificial construct of the Collective Unconscious -- will be pleased. For some value of "pleased."

What exactly are you saying "not true" about in my first point?
Are you just disagreeing with me for sake of disagreement? It certainly looks like your reply simply restates what I claimed: that the deity has only one inclination...its own good inclination.

We could get into notions of how the devil "fell." But we would then already be cross-talking as our premises would clash. I don't agree with the doctrine of a fallen angel as devil and I haven't been able to place that anywhere in scripture. All references I've found to the devil speak to it's original hebrew, that being an accuser, and as a special office. This runs in line with multiple references that the accuser is simply doing the work of deity as analogous to a prosecutor in the courtroom. All references of his behavior are in line with doing that which he is sent to do (reference Job again, for the most explicated example).

there is one reference I've found to a fallen star, which then becomes Lucifer in the Catholic tradition. But that notion is present nowhere in judaism and if one rereads that portion, then one can also understand it as applying to adam. Try it, and get back to me on that. or you could post the references you think point to the notion of a Lucifer operating in contrast to the deity's will and we could discuss that, which I think wouldn't be out of place in this thread since we're discussing how could a being, especially an angel, operate outside the will of an all-powerful deity. the simply answer, as far as I can tell, is an angel can't.

I think (feel is more like it) that God finds this thread most interesting and it's just chuckling & letting us entertain it with all these unimformed human words. The labels we humans reach for as descriptives are especially hilarious. The free will statements are close to another reality and worth meditating. All/Being or nothingness is a helpful meditative tool.

As if GOD can be "definable" at all.

Another point, that may have been mentioned already, i don't have time to read the whole post...

If god is also Omnibenovolent, or all knowing, he would know of the evil that would come from his giving us free will, and he would be all powerful, so he COULD change it, and he is all good, so he HAS to have our best interest at heart. Also, if god gave us free will, how does he know the outcome of this all? Couldn't EVERY person deny him, and the "allies" have no army, so evil must triumph? Hm...

Okay...to anyone who takes the time to read this:

Humor me for a second here...I don't have all day to read through everyones posts, so if I'm echoing someone, then well consider it my statement in agreement with that person.

On the subject of situations and events in our history like the Holocaust, Plague, Etc., perhaps it is getting things back into balance, or in preparation for something to come...? Think about it.

If your train of thought stopped at the period of my suggestion above, then consider this: in the way of reincarnation, perhaps "god" needed them elsewhere...

I believe that to get something, you have to give something. We know, via Science, that Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it just changes form. One person dies (changes form) and becomes something new...anything...and/or everything. It's food for thought.

And just to clarify: Prayer is the same as a Spell. It just carries a different name. Even when you are not asking for something for yourself or someone you know, you're still asking. Sure, in prayer you may Thank "god" or "the lord", etc. for what's been given to you...this is indirectly asking for future prayers to be answered (i.e. wisdom, strength, compassion, trust, etc.) Thanking "god" is, in it's own way, "giving" something, so that future prayers may be answered ("getting" something). It's a give and take; a balance.

You know the popular ones (generalized):
"He gives and He takes away"; "Grant us Serenity to accept the things we cannot change..."; so on and so forth.

I'm going to save myself from carpal tunnel and just post a link here:

I believe the OP is referring to what's known as the theist's dilemma, though he may have come by his own means.

http://members.tripod.com/~tosdepartment/theodicy.htm

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with anything on aforementioned website, am not an affiliate of aforementioned website, and I've no idea what the complete content of the website is. View it at your own discretion, yadayada. I think you get it. It was just google'd.

Anyhow, it's an old question to which there haven't been many good answers - from a logical standpoint, meaning.. no revelatory knowledge, no abstract metaphysical statements, etc. -. I just wanted to say that most of the questions asked in this forum are nothing new, and while it's valuable to share your opinions, not all people are equally understanding or accepting of others' beliefs. Thus, the quibbling in nearly every thread that I've read since I discovered this section of the forum. Can we please stop. By the time I'm back on this forum, I'll have read more relevant text. If you want people to respect your opinions, at least be prepared to offer relevant and accurate knowledge to support or refute anyone's claims - and remember that despite undeniable evidence, some people choose to believe otherwise, and that many metaphyiscal questions can never be proven by worldly logic, such and such .. yada yada. Just stop attacking each other. How does that help this forum in any way? Maybe this should be it's own post. I dunno. I'm not saying that everyone on this forum does it, but it certainly seems to have a presence. askldfj ! long live the FSM. / the world was created 5 minutes ago. lol. Someone tell me if im way out of line, I didn't think I was.

Let me say that. God is all good but he won't give everything to humans for free. There is a small price if you want prosperity and wealth and the heavens. That you have to do good and pray. He gave you the complex earth and planets, heavens, life, human body, brain, prophets, earth resources, food and all creatures.

But do you think God created humans to serve them?

"I have not created the humans and the jinn but to worship me" A verse from the Quran.

Jinn is another invisible creature that lives in this world like humans. There are sightings of ghosts all around the world, there are exorcists all around the world. Many of the invisible creatures are Jinn. Are they fake? No. Jinn exist and have certain potential and resources in life and will be judged as humans.

That’s how it has always been. You pray to God and then God helps you prosper, become stronger and have a better life.

"And we will make you face hardships to see who does better work" verse from the Quran.

There are tests of hardship along the way. You will not get heaven just by sitting there. You will not see everything good in this world while you do nothing. That is wisdom of God. And if nobody does good and stop indecency and tell people to do good, then God will end that nation and replace it with a better one. Like what happened to the Pharaoh Nation and many nations before us.

If you can watch “Perished Nations” from Harun Yahya videos, you’ll see what I mean.

But to note, the price of the hardships of life are negligible compared to the reward. And another related verse: "And with each hardship comes ease, and with each hardship comes ease"

Just commenting that I enjoy these articles. First, there are always many fallacies of logic. Second, many ideas that the authors argue against are ideas that they want to believe the opposing group believes. However, most of the time the opposing groups do not carry those believes. Furthermore, they take a simple concept and take the extreme oppositions. For example, if someone says that they are not in support of war, you cannot say they are in support of doing nothing. In many instances people that oppose a war would feel strongly that other measures are necessary. However, arguments such as the link quoted above ignore that concept.

Finally, atheist arguments are really interesting because they normally take a radical belief that is identical to the fundamentalists who they loathe so severely. For example, "I believe there is a god just because I think there should be one." "Haha, you're an idiot to believe in a god because I don't think there is one," in which both are normally followed by some primitive supporting statement that a two year old is capable of presenting.

The post was my own conclusion. Personally, I am of the belief that God is not all powerful, but this not a problem in my eyes. I think that maybe He gets involved in the little things, but doesn't change the big picture; things like the Holocaust seem like they could have been stopped by an all-powerful God.

Of course, what constitutes all-powerful? Can God violate the laws of physics (presumably the ones he created himself)? Can God make 2+2=5? Can God kill himself?
There has to be a certain line that even God cannot cross.


I really can't think of a completely valid statement for God's omnipotence. But this is my personal belief, and I'm pretty sure nobody here has it correct -- how can we know the true nature of God?


vjssy -- nice article. Sums up many of my beliefs -- although I do believe in God.

God has a plan. That plan is to reward men for thier actions here on earth. If he stopped us every time we were about to make a mistake, thereby making us perfect, who would be the one worthy of reward? God and God alone. If we are perfect due to compulsion we can not take credit for that perfection. The credit for any action is exclusive to the person responsible for the action. The only way one person can be rewarded and another punished fairly is to allow them to live without forcing them into or away from any action.

The dilema that comes from this is that not everyone wants to "play fair" and treat others kindly. We get people like Hitler who uses his free will to do horrible things. Since god did not force him to do those things, Hitler can and will be punished. Since most of those he killed, died because of their faith, they can be considered martyrs, the rewards that go along with that are tremendous. Since it was not God who killed them, and since he didn't force them to stick with their faith the reward now is possible.

So in the end, by not stopping the slaughter, God is now able to fullfill His plan of rewarding millions, even though he now has to punish a relative low number of Nazis.

Assuming that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, I find it very difficult to imagine that this being would be purely benevolent. All that is considered good would be his work, but so would all that is evil. The premise presented in the OP doesn't prove that a god could not be omnipotent, but that a god could not be both omnipotent and purely benevolent. An all-powerful being would probably not view good as we define it as being inherently better than evil, but as equally necessary to the function of the universe.

I also find it hard to believe that a god could at once give humans free will and have planned out all that has and ever will be. Either could be true, but I don't see the two as reconcilable with each other.

Or so they say. But this plan seems to be arbitrary and cruel far too often to be executed by a benevolent and all-intelligent God.

The arguments always seemed ridiculous to me. God represents the prime mover yet think of him with respect to natural laws? To think of him in that perspective seems superfluous. Of course, there are arguments against it. Simple ones even. But, I don't really understand the premise of arguing these kind of concepts to begin with.

This is a concept that is tough to deal with especially given the concept of time. I don't think it is nearly as tough to address as it is to comprehend. One reason is because of time. Remember time is relative to us. It's a man-made concept. So, think of time as the perceived differentiation from one action to the next. In actuality, all events have already occurred. However, we cannot experience all action at once, therefore we invented the concept of time (the distance between two actions). Therefore, in a way, you could say that we do have free will. However, all action has already occurred. Therefore, while we do have a free will within the constraints of space and time, all things have already occurred. Therefore, it is not necessarily free will in a mechanism that we can understand. Or at very least, have incredible difficulty grasping.

My biggest problem has always been the concept of God and evil. If we, created in God's image, how do we have free will? I mean, free will implies the ability to do evil. By definition, God does not. Of course, I found a conclusion to satisfy my battle with this issue and most issues.

If this life was all we had, then yes I'd agree with you. The flaw in your argument is that you aren't taking into acount all that will follow this life. Comparing eternity to the few years we are here shows that an eternal reward far outweighs any pain we have here.