The Problem of Omnipotence?

[Davian]

No, I'm having trouble with your wording. I'm also trying to get you to clarify.

Get thee to a dictionary.

 

[Aldebaran]

Get thee to a dictionary.

You asked back in post 174:
How could anything trouble an omnipotent deity other than another omnipotent deity?

Then I asked you: What do you mean by "troubled", and why do assume God is "troubled" by Satan?

If you can't answer that, then you're not here to have an actual conversation.

 

[Belk]

Firstly, So God, with his omnipotence, created evil, which He apparently hates, to show us that He could overcome it? God created humankind, caused them unnecessary suffering, will send the vast majority of them to hell for an eternity of torment...to show off?

God couldn't come up with a more efficient way to do this without all of the evil, and suffering, and hell and stuff?

Secondly, we are His creation. If we fail, then God failed. I will again go to the computer programmer analogy. If one of the variables in a program does something unexpected, and causes the program to fail, it's ultimately the programmer who failed. An actual programmer is limited by software, knowledge and technological advancement. An omnipotent being is not.

Actually, would that not require omniscience?

 

[JGG]

Yes. God created evil to show us that he both judges and has mercy and is able to overcome it. The suffering that humanity faces is not unnecessary, but necessary for the glory of God and for our ultimate good. Keep in mind too that God is not aloof from the suffering that He permits. He himself is subject to the most awful suffering imaginable in Christ on the cross. Our God suffers with us.

Wow. Really? And I'm supposed to love this God.

Imagine a scientist who creates in his lab a plague of incredible destruction. He unleashes this upon the world, lasting years, and killing billions of people through untold suffering. The scientist then emerges with a cure, that he could have presented at any time, and says "for my own glory I will cure this disease I created."

That scientist is a good guy?

And no, Christ on the Cross is not the most awful suffering I can imagine. I watched someone get injected with a poison that made her throat close up, gave her constant nausea, made drinking water painful, and in which she was closed off from the rest of the world for fear of infection...and that was the treatment to the disease se had. In the end, the cancer amplified her pain receptors making the slightest touch or movement absolute agony. Where eventually the only relief was to be chemically put into a coma until she died.

That was for the Glory of God? What a jerk.

I will give you all of that, if you're prepared to admit that it's clear God hates us all.

No variable in God's program ever does anything unexpected. All that comes to pass has been ordained by the Father.

Then we don't have freewill?

 

[Tree of Life]

Wow. Really? And I'm supposed to love this God.

Imagine a scientist who creates in his lab a plague of incredible destruction. He unleashes this upon the world, lasting years, and killing billions of people through untold suffering. The scientist then emerges with a cure, that he could have presented at any time, and says "for my own glory I will cure this disease I created."

That scientist is a good guy?

I think we would both agree that this scientist is a megalomaniacal monster. The question is: Is what God does comparable to what this scientist has done? I would say no.

First of all, the scientist is a human being like all others who has no right to unleash that kind of chaos into creation. His standing within creation is equal to those whom he's harming. God, on the other hand, since he created all life and gives life and experience to everything has every right to do exactly as he pleases with what he has made. Daniel 4:34-35 says:

"for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?”

God, being the creator and owner of everything, has the right to do as he pleases with his creation.

Secondly, unlike our situation the scientist has unleashed suffering on passive and innocent victims. The suffering that we receive from God on the other hand is only just. In many cases we are only receiving what we freely dish out to others. We suffer because of our own sin and the sins of others.

Thirdly, unlike God, the scientist remains aloof from the suffering that the world is experiencing. God, on the other hand, has taken on human flesh and suffered everything we suffer and more than we'll ever suffer. Jesus, on the cross, was totally abandoned by God the Father, suffering the agony of hell so that we wouldn't have to.

And no, Christ on the Cross is not the most awful suffering I can imagine. I watched someone get injected with a poison that made her throat close up, gave her constant nausea, made drinking water painful, and in which she was closed off from the rest of the world for fear of infection...and that was the treatment to the disease se had. In the end, the cancer amplified her pain receptors making the slightest touch or movement absolute agony. Where eventually the only relief was to be chemically put into a coma until she died.

That was for the Glory of God? What a jerk.

This is a terrible thing to witness. I can see that the problem of evil is very personal for you as it is for many. Is God glorified in cancer? He certainly can be. There are many who suffered and died of cancer who will be raised to new, eternal, and cancer-free life in the resurrection. God will be glorified as having victory over cancer. God is also glorified in the faith of many who've faced cancer and death with thanksgiving in their hearts to the Lord, being convinced of the promise of eternal life.

But cancer is still tragic and even though God permits it and wrote it into the story it still pains him to see his creatures suffer. In John 11 Jesus' close friend Lazarus is dying. Jesus could've easily visited him and miraculously prevented his death but instead he waited for Lazarus to die. He allowed Lazarus to experience death and his family to experience loss. Then four days later Jesus visited the grieving family.

Knowing that he would raise Lazarus from the dead, Jesus still wept over the loss of Lazarus and the grief that it caused his family. So God, though he permits suffering, still suffers with his suffering creatures. He is not ambivalent toward our suffering. He is present in our suffering and suffering with us. He allows us to face sickness and death so that we would know the power of the resurrection and no longer live in fear of death.

I will give you all of that, if you're prepared to admit that it's clear God hates us all.

Upon seeing the suffering in the world this is the conclusion that many have come to. But if God hates us why would he come in the flesh and suffer with us, rising again from death so that we could also have the hope of resurrection? Why would he make everything sad come untrue?

Then we don't have freewill?

We have freewill in the compatiblist sense but not in the libertarian sense.

 

[Davian]

You asked back in post 174:
How could anything trouble an omnipotent deity other than another omnipotent deity?

Then I asked you: What do you mean by "troubled", and why do assume God is "troubled" by Satan?

If you can't answer that, then you're not here to have an actual conversation.

My question was philosophy. Your question is theology. Wrong forum. Try the Exploring Christianity forum. Open a thread on this topic yourself.

 

[Aldebaran]

My question was philosophy. Your question is theology. Wrong forum. Try the Exploring Christianity forum. Open a thread on this topic yourself.

I was more interested in reading a response to what TreeofLife just wrote. Can you write one of those?

 

[CryOfALion]

Most people understand God's power like they misunderstand numbers, especially zero and infinity. Zero and infinity are "undefined" as numbers, because they are not numbers. They are generators of numbers. Infinity generates the complete space of all numbers, and as a result continues to "generate" indefinitely. Because it continues to generate, it can generate copies of its own "infinity," like (4/3)∞, or -27*∞. This is why you cannot "add" infinities, because you do not know what generator the infinity is. It could be an infinite generator of all prime numbers, or a generator of positive complex integers.

Zero is similar to infinity: it is the sum of + ∞' and -∞', for the same infinity generator. It is also the multiplication inverse of the generator infinity, and is thus the generator of the null space for the field. Zero is technically undefined also, as one can easily show that a number is simply a limit that approaches a well-defined point on the number line. But, numbers are not as well-defined as we take for granted, and can easily be written in terms of zero [ lim x--> ∞ (1/x), ] or infinity.

With that said, God the Most High is inexplicable on most spectrums of His character on the philosophical and spiritual side because most of us miss serious points about the most minute and largest elements of mathematics. As to the question of making something "God can't unmake, or lift" is still naivete of infinity. It is logically flawed for an infinitely powerful being to face impossibility. It is also flawed to suggest it, if "infinity" is being used as all-encompassing. A god can create a universe, exist outside of its creation, yet it can build a created object it cannot control? Yes, perhaps if you entertain only one infinity (even then, you put parameters on a generator or all space for the respective field.)

Questions about an all powerful god, and the lack of abilities s/he may have begins intellectually disingenuous, and vehemently ignores paradox.

 

[JGG]

I think we would both agree that this scientist is a megalomaniacal monster. The question is: Is what God does comparable to what this scientist has done? I would say no.

First of all, the scientist is a human being like all others who has no right to unleash that kind of chaos into creation. His standing within creation is equal to those whom he's harming. God, on the other hand, since he created all life and gives life and experience to everything has every right to do exactly as he pleases with what he has made. Daniel 4:34-35 says:

"for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?”

God, being the creator and owner of everything, has the right to do as he pleases with his creation.

So, morality isn't determined by the motivation, or the consequences, but is relative to who performs the action?

It doesn't matter to me who inflicts suffering, causing others suffering is wrong. God has inflicted all suffering on all the world to glorify Himself. I cannot believe in such a being.

Secondly, unlike our situation the scientist has unleashed suffering on passive and innocent victims. The suffering that we receive from God on the other hand is only just. In many cases we are only receiving what we freely dish out to others. We suffer because of our own sin and the sins of others.

Are you saying that anyone who suffers deserves it? How does that work? God created sin. God created suffering. God unleashed both upon us to glorify Himself. We deserve to be suffer and be punished for sin?

This God is horrible.

Thirdly, unlike God, the scientist remains aloof from the suffering that the world is experiencing. God, on the other hand, has taken on human flesh and suffered everything we suffer and more than we'll ever suffer. Jesus, on the cross, was totally abandoned by God the Father, suffering the agony of hell so that we wouldn't have to.

I'm confused God took on flesh and then was totally abandoned by God? Are you saying God abandons us in times of suffering and yet is glorified by it? That sounds pretty aloof.

This is a terrible thing to witness. I can see that the problem of evil is very personal for you as it is for many. Is God glorified in cancer? He certainly can be. There are many who suffered and died of cancer who will be raised to new, eternal, and cancer-free life in the resurrection.

The vast majority will be cast into hell to be tormented for eternity. Why does God do that?

So let's recap: God inexplicably creates us to be flawed, sends us to a corrupt world, unleashes sin upon us, causes us to suffer (because we deserve it for be created flawed), and then punishes us for all eternity for imperfection. And this is all to glorify God? And the reason this isn't pure evil is because omnipotent God says so...and this is where morality comes from?

God will be glorified as having victory over cancer.

That's great for God I'm sure. It's cold comfort for those he inflicts it upon. What a horrible being.

God is also glorified in the faith of many who've faced cancer and death with thanksgiving in their hearts to the Lord, being convinced of the promise of eternal life.

And the rest? How does God benefit from those whose suffering caused them to conclude that God could not possibly exist?

But cancer is still tragic and even though God permits it and wrote it into the story it still pains him to see his creatures suffer.

That doesn't make sense. If God wants us to suffer, how is he pained by it? Surely He delights in it if our suffering glorifies Him? It's not as though God suffers. He's omnipotent, He only suffers if he's a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

Let's not forget an omnipotent God could achieve any objective an infinite number of ways. So God specifically wants us to suffer even when we don't have to. That's tough to get past.

In John 11 Jesus' close friend Lazarus is dying. Jesus could've easily visited him and miraculously prevented his death but instead he waited for Lazarus to die. He allowed Lazarus to experience death and his family to experience loss. Then four days later Jesus visited the grieving family.

Knowing that he would raise Lazarus from the dead, Jesus still wept over the loss of Lazarus and the grief that it caused his family.

So Jesus could have prevented suffering and grief, and decided to allow it?

So God, though he permits suffering, still suffers with his suffering creatures. He is not ambivalent toward our suffering. He is present in our suffering and suffering with us. He allows us to face sickness and death so that we would know the power of the resurrection and no longer live in fear of death.

God's plan to defeat fear of death is to cause suffering? Seems like overkill, doesn't it?

Upon seeing the suffering in the world this is the conclusion that many have come to. But if God hates us why would he come in the flesh and suffer with us, rising again from death so that we could also have the hope of resurrection?

That's burying the lead. Why did an omnipotent being create suffering unless He wants us to suffer?

Why would he make everything sad come untrue?

He hasn't. Why would He? He's gone out of His way to create these sad things. Why would He "untrue" them?

We have freewill in the compatiblist sense but not in the libertarian sense.

Watered down determinism is still determinism.