Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
God's folded arms
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blindwatchmaker" data-source="post: 75793630" data-attributes="member: 433382"><p>No. I am NOT assuming that omnipotence means doing self-contradictory things.</p><p>Omnipotence as defined by modern theologians is taken to mean the ability to do all <em>logically possible things</em> (so excludes square circles etc). That's the usage I'm employing here.</p><p>Nothing in what I have suggested by omnipotence is logically inconsistent. That argument is not applicable. </p><p></p><p>So your reply is simply a recapitulation of the second theodicy I mentioned:</p><p>ie God has his own special reasons for wanting little girls sodomised and killed. </p><p>But as I said, this implies a lack of imagination on his part.</p><p>This argument necessarily means that God's power is limited because he can't figure out a way to fulfil those special reasons without concomitant pain and suffering.</p><p>Again, there is nothing logically self-contradictory about this. </p><p>The universe is currently in State A. God wants it to be in State B.</p><p>And he is not powerful or creative enough to get there without rape and murder.</p><p></p><p>Your final argument is that our own sense of right or wrong is irrelevant. Only God knows what it best.</p><p>On that basis, it would follow that every evil thing is actually a step towards some greater good.</p><p>This would mean we all have a <em>moral obligation</em> to rape and murder as many five-year-olds as possible as each crime would actually be GOOD but just for reasons we simple sinners can't understand.</p><p></p><p>Some people use the problem of evil as an argument against God's exisitence.</p><p>I don't think that works. </p><p>But unless we define benevolence as including the indifference to huge a amounts of suffering, it seems problematic to assume such a god to be good in any meaningful way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blindwatchmaker, post: 75793630, member: 433382"] No. I am NOT assuming that omnipotence means doing self-contradictory things. Omnipotence as defined by modern theologians is taken to mean the ability to do all [I]logically possible things[/I] (so excludes square circles etc). That's the usage I'm employing here. Nothing in what I have suggested by omnipotence is logically inconsistent. That argument is not applicable. So your reply is simply a recapitulation of the second theodicy I mentioned: ie God has his own special reasons for wanting little girls sodomised and killed. But as I said, this implies a lack of imagination on his part. This argument necessarily means that God's power is limited because he can't figure out a way to fulfil those special reasons without concomitant pain and suffering. Again, there is nothing logically self-contradictory about this. The universe is currently in State A. God wants it to be in State B. And he is not powerful or creative enough to get there without rape and murder. Your final argument is that our own sense of right or wrong is irrelevant. Only God knows what it best. On that basis, it would follow that every evil thing is actually a step towards some greater good. This would mean we all have a [I]moral obligation[/I] to rape and murder as many five-year-olds as possible as each crime would actually be GOOD but just for reasons we simple sinners can't understand. Some people use the problem of evil as an argument against God's exisitence. I don't think that works. But unless we define benevolence as including the indifference to huge a amounts of suffering, it seems problematic to assume such a god to be good in any meaningful way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
God's folded arms
Top
Bottom