Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[Cheerful Charlie]

Omni
Potent

This is so easy to understand.
What part of 'omni' needs explaining? It literally means ALL
There is no wiggle room. No exceptions.

Isn't it just an assertion, taken on faith? "God can do anything." So how does one test this claim?

Same thing with omniscience. How do we verify that God truly knows everything? For that matter, how does God know that he knows everything?

Descartes: God creates all the laws of the Universe, the very metaphysical necessities of reality. (Letters to Mersennes) And of course God is perfectly good. Descartes was a very orthodox Catholic who accepted that dogma. But if so, God could have created all men to have free will and a good nature who freely never do moral evil. We do not live in such a world. It would appear that Descartes is wrong and God is not omnipotent. Not the creator of the Universe in its totality with all its laws.

Omniscient? God is omnipresent, present at all places at all time and can know everything by simple inspection. But if he creates everything, all depends on what he decides to create, meaning he creates all moral evil. Something is wrong with the many ways theologians try to describe God's omniscience when coupled with his creation of all. Theologians have filled small libraries with attempts to solve the many problems attached to these dogmatic claims. Which is all they are, dogmatic claims, not based on evidence of any kind.

 

[Lion IRC]

Which does not include being able to ignore dares from Satan, apparently.

Do you mean with Job? It was God who issued the challenge there...

Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” (Job 1:8–11)

Regards,
Lee

It looks to me like satan is the one daring God - to prove that Job is the real deal even when things get tough.

 

[ruby sparks]

Which does not include being able to ignore dares from Satan, apparently.

Do you mean with Job? It was God who issued the challenge there...

Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” (Job 1:8–11)

Regards,
Lee

It looks to me like satan is the one daring God - to prove that Job is the real deal even when things get tough.

Yes. Sometimes it's really hard to tell when god is doing stuff, when the devil is doing stuff. It's pretty much the same difficulty in principle trying to decide whether something was done by a banshee or a leprechaun, or, if a scenario involves, for example, a tree, whether or not a tree spirit was involved.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you mean with Job? It was God who issued the challenge there...

Sorry to stop you there, but that's just you saying that. You weren't there at the time and it could just be made up. Also, it can't be ruled out that a naughty elf could have pretended to be god.

 

[Atheos]

Can he create 100% free moral agents who could sin but never do?

Sure. Why not?
And since He would know they will remain sinless He may decide that was a pointless exercise.
And wouldnt that simply invite satan to dare God that He create more people like Job instead?

Just checking, it's hard to know what god people believe in sometimes.

A lot of people (not you, apparently) believe in a god who is tri-omni: Omnipotent, Omni-Benevolent and Omniscient. Such a god would (if possible) prefer to create a world where nobody suffered. If it chose a suffering world when it could have chosen something else, it's not maximally benevolent. No problem, your god isn't tri-omni. It may be somewhat benevolent but either it has a mean streak and enjoys watching people (and animals) suffer or it lacks knowledge of the suffering going on.

I gather the classic problem of evil doesn't apply to your god.

 

[Jobar]

Does God have power over logic, or does logic have power over God?

It's a close analog of the Euthyphro dilemma.

 

[James Brown]

 

[Jobar]

Can he create 100% free moral agents who could sin but never do?

Sure. Why not?
And since He would know they will remain sinless He may decide that was a pointless exercise.
And wouldnt that simply invite satan to dare God that He create more people like Job instead?

Just checking, it's hard to know what god people believe in sometimes.

A lot of people (not you, apparently) believe in a god who is tri-omni: Omniscient, Omni-Benevolent and Omniscient. Such a god would (if possible) prefer to create a world where nobody suffered. If it chose a suffering world when it could have chosen something else, it's not maximally benevolent. No problem, your god isn't tri-omni. It may be somewhat benevolent but either it has a mean streak and enjoys watching people (and animals) suffer or it lacks knowledge of the suffering going on.

I gather the classic problem of evil doesn't apply to your god.

Anyone who believes there's an eternal Hell cannot believe in a benevolent God, I think.

And I agree that a 3-O God is shown to be impossible by the Riddle:
~The Riddle of Epicurus~
Is God willing to prevent evil (suffering), but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil (suffering)?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 14751

I don't see the issue here. The god of the Tanakh is a thorough sociopathic dick.

 

[lee_merrill]

Anyone who believes there's an eternal Hell cannot believe in a benevolent God, I think.

Unless you hope that all may repent, as I do.

And I agree that a 3-O God is shown to be impossible by the Riddle:
~The Riddle of Epicurus~
Is God willing to prevent evil (suffering), but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil (suffering)?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

He is both able and willing, and eventually...

"There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Re 21:4)

And if there was no suffering at all, what would there be to reward?

Regards,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

Sorry to stop you there, but that's just you saying that. You weren't there at the time and it could just be made up. Also, it can't be ruled out that a naughty elf could have pretended to be god.

So now we're getting into the existence of God, if God exists, then the account is plausible.

Regards,
Lee

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He is both able and willing, and eventually...

"There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Re 21:4)

And if there was no suffering at all, what would there be to reward?

There is nothing about that which makes any sense at all.

First off, you're saying he's able and willing and yet doing nothing about it. The fact that he's made a promise to get around to doing something about it at some undefined later date doesn't count as doing something about it. For instance, if I see a child getting raped and I make a note in my calendar app to call the police about it early next week, so that the kid only has an extra week of getting raped to go through before I heroically leap to his defence, I don't get to brag about what a good person I am because doing that as opposed to stepping in immediately would mean that I'm not a good person. God is currently watching children getting raped and not doing anything about it, so the whole "Relax, I'll have their suffering go away sometime in the future" doesn't make him a good person if he allows that suffering now.

Also, why do you need suffering in order to merit a reward? Why can't you just reward good behaviour without the need for bad behaviour? It's still very distinguishable from neutral behaviour. For instance, if everybody in an office does decent work and one person excels and does amazing work, when the time for yearly bonuses comes around, can you see management saying "Sorry, we can't give you a raise because there was nobody who set the lunch room on fire whom we can compare you to"?

 

[ruby sparks]

So now we're getting into the existence of God....

Not necessarily. The existence or non-existence of god is a slightly separate issue to whether an elf could have played a part in proceedings.

if God exists, then the account is plausible.

Indeed. Ditto for elves.

"There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, except for those suffering eternally, for the old order of things has passed away.”

FIFY.

 

[James Brown]

Many Christians confuse struggling with suffering. Because one can be beneficial in certain circumstances, they feel that the other must be beneficial in all circumstances.

I know I certainly confused the two, back when Christian apologia was my beat.

 

[lee_merrill]

First off, you're saying he's able and willing and yet doing nothing about it.

No, I claim God bears suffering, in such a way that it's primarily him we sin against when we sin. Thus Jesus' outlandish claim to forgive sins.

Also, why do you need suffering in order to merit a reward? Why can't you just reward good behaviour without the need for bad behaviour?

Because good behavior generally involves some self-denial?

Many Christians confuse struggling with suffering. Because one can be beneficial in certain circumstances, they feel that the other must be beneficial in all circumstances.

Not all suffering is beneficial, though I can see how it might all be beneficial, if God indeed wipes away all tears from the eyes of his people, and if all may repent:

"They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes." (Rev 21:3–4)

Regards,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

Indeed. Ditto for elves.

So I would be willing to defend the existence of God, this would seem to be an appropriate forum for that.

Regards,
Lee

 

[ruby sparks]

So I would be willing to defend the existence of God, this would seem to be an appropriate forum for that.

There's at least one slight problem. I might not take your arguments all that seriously if you tried to do that. Even if you're not doing Thor.

 

[ruby sparks]

"They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes." (Rev 21:3–4)

Regards,
Lee

Keep quoting. Do up to verse 8.

Regards,
Lord Elf

 

[ruby sparks]

Unless you hope that all may repent, as I do.

Me too. But as for those idiots who screw up, let 'em all suffer eternally, that's what I say. Dem's da breaks, right?

 

[Underseer]

Unless you hope that all may repent, as I do.

Me too. But as for those idiots who screw up, let 'em all suffer eternally, that's what I say. Dem's da breaks, right?

Don't different denominations have different opinions about that?

I thought Catholics had to go to confessional every week or every month or something like that.

 

[James Brown]

Not all suffering is beneficial, though I can see how it might all be beneficial, if...

I'll ignore the built-in contradiction here, and instead ask you a question.

Would you agree to my breaking one of your legs with a baseball bat? Yes, you'll suffer pain and agony, but God will wipe away your tears some day, so you will therefore benefit from your suffering.

In fact, you'll get twice the benefit if you let me break both of your legs.