God: evil, incompetent or impaired?

[workmx]

In the classic formulation of the problem of evil, theists must wrestle with the fact of evil in the world and what that tells us of a creator god who said to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. All references to “god” below will assume that this god is a creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. The word “god” will be used as shorthand for that type of deity.

That evil exists is a problem for such a god. If evil exists, we must ask whether that god can prevent evil. If not, then god is not all powerful (not omnipotent). If god doesn’t know about this evil, it is not all knowing (omniscient). If god knows about evil and chooses not to prevent evil, that god is not all good (omnibenevolent). If god knows about, can prevent and wants to prevent evil (in other words, remains omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent), then why does evil exist?

At this point some will say that god is testing humans. In this case, god would know the result (as god remained omniscient), so the test would be pointless.

Others may say that it is the presence of Satan in the world that causes evil, but god (remaining omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) could simply destroy Satan. Given that god also created Satan, the question of why create both evil and Satan also relevant.

If god could have created a universe without evil, then why did god not do that? At this point some may say that god created the universe with freewill and evil. But god could have created a universe with freewill and no evil, if god was all powerful (omnipotent). So, the question remains as to why create an imperfect universe with evil?

It is possible that god could not create a universe without evil, thus is not all powerful (omnipotent).

Alternatively, god may have been able to create a universe without evil, but did not want to do so. This also leads us to the question of why create a universe with evil, unless god is actually evil. If god is evil, then god is closer to the classical conception of Satan. And thus, Satan may be less evil than god (which seems to concur with Biblical account of Satan). If god is not evil, then we can assume that god is either incompetent or cognitively impaired.

 

[Joshua260]

I think the Epicurean argument is frankly one of the worst arguments against the existence of God that atheists have put forth. It's been my experience that they are the only ones who seem to be impressed by it.

Here's one version:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

The argument fails to make its case because premise 1 is not provable. Why? Simply because it is possible that God may have a reason for allowing evil to exist. We don't even have to know what that reason is. So, in order for the argument to succeed, you would have to prove that God could not have any possible reason for allowing evil to exist.

 

[dcalling]

In my mind nothing is omnipotent not even God (maybe God is omniscient, not sure).

No one is omnipotent, it is easy to prove (can't create something he can't do, just one example disapproves a theory). I don't think the Bible teaches God is omnipotent, the Bible refer to God as the creator, and very power (most likely the most powerful in the universe), and with love.

 

[Johnnz]

This hoary issue arises often enough here. Joshua's post is a good reply.

What interests me though is what explanation do the Christian critics have for the same phenomenon, and how do they determine what is evil from mere personal dislike of something.

John
NZ

 

[workmx]

I think the Epicurean argument is frankly one of the worst arguments against the existence of God that atheists have put forth. It's been my experience that they are the only ones who seem to be impressed by it.

Here's one version:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

The argument fails to make its case because premise 1 is not provable. Why? Simply because it is possible that God may have a reason for allowing evil to exist. We don't even have to know what that reason is. So, in order for the argument to succeed, you would have to prove that God could not have any possible reason for allowing evil to exist.

It is not an argument against the existence of god.

It is, as stated, a problem for theists to solve.

If god have a reason for allowing evil to exist, can god make a world without evil?

 

[workmx]

In my mind nothing is omnipotent not even God (maybe God is omniscient, not sure).

No one is omnipotent, it is easy to prove (can't create something he can't do, just one example disapproves a theory). I don't think the Bible teaches God is omnipotent, the Bible refer to God as the creator, and very power (most likely the most powerful in the universe), and with love.

An excellent response. Thanks.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

In the classic formulation of the problem of evil, theists must wrestle with the fact of evil in the world and what that tells us of a creator god who said to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. All references to “god” below will assume that this god is a creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. The word “god” will be used as shorthand for that type of deity.

That evil exists is a problem for such a god. If evil exists, we must ask whether that god can prevent evil. If not, then god is not all powerful (not omnipotent). If god doesn’t know about this evil, it is not all knowing (omniscient). If god knows about evil and chooses not to prevent evil, that god is not all good (omnibenevolent). If god knows about, can prevent and wants to prevent evil (in other words, remains omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent), then why does evil exist?

At this point some will say that god is testing humans. In this case, god would know the result (as god remained omniscient), so the test would be pointless.

Others may say that it is the presence of Satan in the world that causes evil, but god (remaining omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) could simply destroy Satan. Given that god also created Satan, the question of why create both evil and Satan also relevant.

If god could have created a universe without evil, then why did god not do that? At this point some may say that god created the universe with freewill and evil. But god could have created a universe with freewill and no evil, if god was all powerful (omnipotent). So, the question remains as to why create an imperfect universe with evil?

It is possible that god could not create a universe without evil, thus is not all powerful (omnipotent).

Alternatively, god may have been able to create a universe without evil, but did not want to do so. This also leads us to the question of why create a universe with evil, unless god is actually evil. If god is evil, then god is closer to the classical conception of Satan. And thus, Satan may be less evil than god (which seems to concur with Biblical account of Satan). If god is not evil, then we can assume that god is either incompetent or cognitively impaired.

Love is only possible if there is free will.

Free will is only possible if evil is a choice.

God wants us to love him and each other. Evil must be possible or there is no such thing as love.

 

[workmx]

This hoary issue arises often enough here. Joshua's post is a good reply.

No, Joshua just avoided the issue.

What interests me though is what explanation do the Christian critics have for the same phenomenon, and how do they determine what is evil from mere personal dislike of something.

But this is much better. Thanks for that.

 

[Johnnz]

No, Joshua just avoided the issue.

I don't quite agree with your comment.

C S Lewis responded to the classic syllogism, which he argued does not hold if there is another factor to consider,such as the possibility that there are reasons which God has not told us about. A philosopher I listened to some time ago mentioned Lewis' argument and stated that it had never been disproved philosophically. Joshua's post seems to me to be along a similar line.

John
NZ

 

[workmx]

I don't quite agree with your comment.

C S Lewis responded to the classic syllogism, which he argued does not hold if there is another factor to consider,such as the possibility that there are reasons which God has not told us about. A philosopher I listened to some time ago mentioned Lewis' argument and stated that it had never been disproved philosophically. Joshua's post seems to me to be along a similar line.

John
NZ

As I said, it is not a argument against the existence of god.

So, if it fails to do that, that is fine. And Lewis may be right, but it is irrelevant.

It is a problem (the hint is in the name) for theists to resolve:

How can god be omni-max when evil exits?

I am yet to hear a good response to the problem.

But would love to hear one.

 

[Harry3142]

workmx-

The power and authority in this world does not reside with God, nor does it reside with Satan. It resides with us. We may say, "The devil made me do it," but the bottom line is that we have the ability to choose for ourselves which path we will travel. And it is on the basis of our own decision as individuals that we are either good or evil.

 

[oi_antz]

In the classic formulation of the problem of evil, theists must wrestle with the fact of evil in the world and what that tells us of a creator god who said to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. All references to “god” below will assume that this god is a creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. The word “god” will be used as shorthand for that type of deity.

That evil exists is a problem for such a god. If evil exists, we must ask whether that god can prevent evil. If not, then god is not all powerful (not omnipotent). If god doesn’t know about this evil, it is not all knowing (omniscient). If god knows about evil and chooses not to prevent evil, that god is not all good (omnibenevolent). If god knows about, can prevent and wants to prevent evil (in other words, remains omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent), then why does evil exist?

At this point some will say that god is testing humans. In this case, god would know the result (as god remained omniscient), so the test would be pointless.

Others may say that it is the presence of Satan in the world that causes evil, but god (remaining omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) could simply destroy Satan. Given that god also created Satan, the question of why create both evil and Satan also relevant.

If god could have created a universe without evil, then why did god not do that? At this point some may say that god created the universe with freewill and evil. But god could have created a universe with freewill and no evil, if god was all powerful (omnipotent). So, the question remains as to why create an imperfect universe with evil?

It is possible that god could not create a universe without evil, thus is not all powerful (omnipotent).

Alternatively, god may have been able to create a universe without evil, but did not want to do so. This also leads us to the question of why create a universe with evil, unless god is actually evil. If god is evil, then god is closer to the classical conception of Satan. And thus, Satan may be less evil than god (which seems to concur with Biblical account of Satan). If god is not evil, then we can assume that god is either incompetent or cognitively impaired.

You are measuring something. When measuring something, you become aware of the lesser degree of that thing. So you are measuring evil. You are aware of the lesser degree of evil. You are also measuring good and becoming aware of the lesser degree of good. They are not on the same scale. Being neither good or bad is neither good nor bad. Something can be somewhat good while being somewhat bad. So keep that in mind if someone tries to say that one is required to appreciate the other. That is not true. But, because of the way this universe is constructed (having lesser or greater amounts of things), then there is obviously a perceivable amount of good and a perceivable amount of bad.

I think what you think is evil is ultimately because of time itself. It is because of time that things begin and end, and because things begin and end, there is growth in between. When things grow, they tend to do things that they might later learn is wrong. However, something else that might have been impacted by the thing they did that is wrong might have known at the time that it was wrong.

Is evil in the sense that you are using it, the same as wrong in this sense?

 

[Joshua260]

As I said, it is not a argument against the existence of god.

So, if it fails to do that, that is fine. And Lewis may be right, but it is irrelevant.

It is a problem (the hint is in the name) for theists to resolve:

How can god be omni-max when evil exits?

I am yet to hear a good response to the problem.

But would love to hear one.

No, I did not avoid the issue. But your discussion in your OP was pretty much all the same propaganda we hear when the Epicurean argument is presented so I thought that was where you were going with that. Never-the-less, we'll proceed with your last reply where you clarified:

"How can god be omni-max when evil exits?"

Answer: God can be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (what you call "omni-max"), when evil exists, simply because he has reason(s) for allowing evil to exist.

This is not a "problem" for theists. It's a pretty simple answer.

 

[workmx]

workmx-

The power and authority in this world does not reside with God, nor does it reside with Satan. It resides with us. We may say, "The devil made me do it," but the bottom line is that we have the ability to choose for ourselves which path we will travel. And it is on the basis of our own decision as individuals that we are either good or evil.

Ah. So, you believe in free will?

Who would I know that I have free will?

 

[workmx]

No, I did not avoid the issue. But your discussion in your OP was pretty much all the same propaganda we hear when the Epicurean argument is presented so I thought that was where you were going with that. Never-the-less, we'll proceed with your last reply where you clarified:

"How can god be omni-max when evil exits?"

Answer: God can be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (what you call "omni-max"), when evil exists, simply because he has reason(s) for allowing evil to exist.

This is not a "problem" for theists. It's a pretty simple answer.

So, could god create a world without evil? Yes or no?

If no, god is not omnipotent.

If yes, why didn't god have created a world without evil?

 

[Johnnz]

So, could god create a world without evil? Yes or no?

If no, god is not omnipotent.

If yes, why didn't god have created a world without evil?

God can't do an evil act. That does not limit his authority. God will always act in accordance with his purposes, which ultimately will be good in their outcome. That is what His omnipotence entails.

John
NZ

 

[workmx]

God can't do an evil act. That does not limit his authority. God will always act in accordance with his purposes, which ultimately will be good in their outcome. That is what His omnipotence entails.

Creating a world with evil, when you don't have to (omnipotent), seems like an evil act to me.

There is no doubt that evil exists in the world and if god created the world, he created that evil.

So, god is not all-loving (omnibenevolent), and wanted to create a world with evil.

In which case, god is evil by nature.

 

[Johnnz]

Creating a world with evil, when you don't have to (omnipotent), seems like an evil act to me.

There is no doubt that evil exists in the world and if god created the world, he created that evil.

So, god is not all-loving (omnibenevolent), and wanted to create a world with evil.

In which case, god is evil by nature.

Seems some blinkers might be in place. Joshua stated:
Answer: God can be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (what you call "omni-max"), when evil exists, simply because he has reason(s) for allowing evil to exist.

This is not a "problem" for theists. It's a pretty simple answer.

That is not an unreasonable answer, although you seem to be ignoring it, probably as it disturbs your simplistic syllogisms.

You who can't even know all about yourself, let alone another person, with complete certainty, can dismiss God having purposes He has not told us about. Really?

Soundly reasoned arguments require facts
You don't have all the facts
Therefore your arguments are not reasonable.

Or:
Reason alone based on facts is the primary arbiter of truth.

How do you 'prove' that without using reason and therefore engaging in a circular argument - reason 'proving; reason?

John
NZ

 

[oi_antz]

Ah. So, you believe in free will?

Have you not asked this already?

 

[workmx]

Have you not asked this already?

I don't remember asking Harry this question, but I could be wong.