Infinitely Powerful

[pgwenthold]

It is most certainly a restriction of your freedom. So what? God restricts your ability to do a lot of things, including flying (as you pointed out).



Because perhaps the greater good is achieved by allowing the freedom to choose between right and wrong, as I said previously.

An omnipotent god cannot achieve the greatest good without allowing the freedom to choose between right and wrong?

That's pretty much what you are claiming. Of course, as I said, it is unsupportable nonsense, and you basically admit it.

In the end, you have, as usual, turned this into a bankrupt discussion. Your argument now is that "perhaps" the greater good is achieved by allowing the freedom to choose between right and wrong. But then, perhaps it isn't? Perhaps the greater good would be achieved by having a brahma bull kick you repeatedly in the head? Perhaps the greater good is achieved by me rebuilding the concentration camps and continuing Hitler's work? There is as much of a basis for these claims as there are for yours.

the end

 

[Belz...]

People steal, lie, kill, cheat all the time. Are you saying that none of them know that these things are wrong? People do things they know to be wrong all the time, especially if there is something to gain from it.

True, but do they think it's "wrong" ? They know it's illegal, but is it wrong ? If their values say : "whatever gives me gain is good", then it isn't, now is it ? It seems quite a leap to suggest that everybody has the same moral scale as we do.

 

[Bri]

Well, that is the whole point behind the "question of evil". It shows that some of the characteristics that some theists give to their concept of God are logically inconsistent with each other. Some of those people will actually redefine their God, but more often, they redefine the words used to describe Him.

I'm just not sure which characteristics of God you believe the Problem of Evil has disproved. It hasn't disproved any of those you've previously defined. We've already discussed that logical proofs cannot be used to disprove a definition of omnipotence that requires God to be able to do the logically impossible. I've also addressed the other definitions you've given, showing that they can fit quite nicely within logic despite the Problem of Evil.

The concept of "nomologically possible" establishes the premises as "obeys natural law". A supernatural god would be nomologically impossible.

I don't believe so. Nomological possibility only applies to the natural, not the supernatural (which is, by definition, beyond nature). If God created nature, there is no reason to believe that he would be limited by it.

Possibly. Give us some examples. Or I will. How about this commonly-held property of God:
God is good (I used to say it every day at grace).
As we have discussed, it can be shown that a god that is okay with anything that you "feel in your heart is right", is not good. He is amoral.

I don't believe you've shown at all that such a God is not good, not to mention other notions of God that might fit the properties you described. At most, you've shown that what is "good" for God might be different than what is "good" for humans (hardly surprising considering our limitations that don't apply to God). Let's assume for a moment that morals (at least human morals) don't apply to God. So what? How exactly does that disprove that God is good? Apples are good, but morals don't apply to apples.

What other commonly-held properties of God would you like to discuss?

The ones I've heard are omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence. The Problem of Evil doesn't disprove such a God, even by your own definitions (much less other definitions posted).

You can never prove a thing, anything, doesn't exist because that would require that you know every single thing about the universe. So we are pretty much restricted to gathering evidence for a thing in order to establish its validity.

Since that was exactly my point, it sounds as though we're in agreement! End of discussion! (?)

In my opinion, there is no evidence for any sort of God, based on the concepts of God that I have heard.

I'm glad you qualified that, because of course there is evidence of God, just nothing definitive. There is also very little compelling evidence that intelligent extra-terrestrials exist, yet many people believe they exist.

If we had even just one god for which we had evidence, then it would be more likely. But one of the commonly-held notions of God is that he intercedes on Earth, even though no strong evidence can be presented for such a notion. I find that to be irrational, if understandable.

It would make sense that God would not only be able to intercede on earth without leaving evidence, but that he would have reason to do so. If we knew for certain that God exists, it would certainly affect our freedom to choose between right and wrong.

LOL. Okay, I'm cool with that. But tell me, what sort of opinions do you value more highly, informed opinions, or uninformed opinions?

Sounds like a loaded question to me! Actually, both a belief in God (or extra-terrestrials) and a belief that there is no God (or no extra-terrestrials) are uninformed opinions since there is little to no evidence to support them.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

It is most certainly a restriction of your freedom. So what? God restricts your ability to do a lot of things, including flying (as you pointed out).

That was God? I always thought it was the laws of physics.

Because perhaps the greater good is achieved by allowing the freedom to choose between right and wrong, as I said previously.

Perhaps. If so, then logically, the freedom to choose to do evil should exist in heaven too, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Bri]

Well, I am a married bachelor. I have a wife and a BS in geology.
And the people I hang with are rather straight-laced, so you could say I run with a square circle of friends. (See what fun you can have when you are allowed to change definitions?)

Yes, if you're allowed to change definitions, then God can easily create a square circle too, by changing the definition of "square circle" to "kangaroo." Let's agree not to go there, OK?

But of course I understand that what you are describing are things which are both a thing and not that thing, which makes them illogical under their own premises.

Correct. In other words, something that is self-contradictory is not logically possible.

Sort of like a supernatural part of a natural universe.

Yes, that would also be a self-contradiction. Of course, most people who believe in the supernatural don't limit the supernatural to the natural universe.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

An omnipotent god cannot achieve the greatest good without allowing the freedom to choose between right and wrong?

If the freedom to choose between right and wrong is the greatest good, then of course an omnipotent God cannot achieve the greatest good without allowing the freedom to choose between right and wrong. If you hold that he can, then you're into the "square circle" argument again. If God can do the illogical, you cannot expect the result to be logical.

Your argument now is that "perhaps" the greater good is achieved by allowing the freedom to choose between right and wrong. But then, perhaps it isn't? Perhaps the greater good would be achieved by having a brahma bull kick you repeatedly in the head? Perhaps the greater good is achieved by me rebuilding the concentration camps and continuing Hitler's work? There is as much of a basis for these claims as there are for yours.

Again, it is not my objective to prove that God exists, or to prove that the greater good is achieved by allowing the freedom to choose between right and wrong. I'm simply saying that if true (as many theists believe) then the Problem of Evil doesn't disprove it.

-Bri

 

[Iacchus]

Oh yes, in order to have the freedom of choice, one has to have at least "two things" to choose between. So that does imply "restrictions" to whatever it is that you choose.

 

[Iacchus]

Perhaps. If so, then logically, the freedom to choose to do evil should exist in heaven too, wouldn't you agree?

Not nearly so much if, the temptation to do evil has been removed. If, however, you had always given in to such temptations prior to your death, you would find yourself right in the thick of it ... in which case the good will have been vastated.

 

[Bri]

That was God? I always thought it was the laws of physics.

Assuming you were created by God, he made you without wings, didn't he? Presumably, God created the laws of physics too.

Perhaps. If so, then logically, the freedom to choose to do evil should exist in heaven too, wouldn't you agree?

Not necessarily. It is possible that there is no free will in heaven, or at least no freedom to choose to do evil.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

I'm just not sure which characteristics of God you believe the Problem of Evil has disproved. It hasn't disproved any of those you've previously defined. We've already discussed that logical proofs cannot be used to disprove a definition of omnipotence that requires God to be able to do the logically impossible. I've also addressed the other definitions you've given, showing that they can fit quite nicely within logic despite the Problem of Evil.

You simply changed the concept of God, the meaning of good, evil, and omnipotence from my statement. You've stated that good and evil are determined by what we feel in our hearts. No, I'm sorry Bri. I don't think you've done what you think.

I don't believe so. Nomological possibility only applies to the natural, not the supernatural (which is, by definition, beyond nature). If God created nature, there is no reason to believe that he would be limited by it.

LOL. But you see, that gives us no information whatsoever. If God makes the rules, but we don't know the mind of God, then that means we no nothing of the rules. There might as well be no rules. Sure, anything is possible when there are no rules that govern the premises.

So if one believes that God is not limited by the rules of nature, it would be hypocritical to claim that He must be limited by the rules of logic. Why couldn't He make a square circle. After all, he's making the rules, right?

I don't believe you've shown at all that such a God is not good, not to mention other notions of God that might fit the properties you described. At most, you've shown that what is "good" for God might be different than what is "good" for humans (hardly surprising considering our limitations that don't apply to God). Let's assume for a moment that morals (at least human morals) don't apply to God. So what? How exactly does that disprove that God is good? Apples are good, but morals don't apply to apples.

Then it simply means that it makes no sense to call God "good" because you cannot tell me what "good" means when applied to God. You can tell me what "good" means as applied to an apple. You can tell me what it means as applied to a human. But what is "good" to God? All you are saying is, "God is good, whatever that means."

The ones I've heard are omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence. The Problem of Evil doesn't disprove such a God, even by your own definitions (much less other definitions posted).

It doesn't disprove it. It just shows it to be logically self-contradictory.

Since that was exactly my point, it sounds as though we're in agreement! End of discussion! (?)

But you can show certain concepts of God to be self contradictory. No, not yours. The one I described. I couldn't begin to describe your concept of God because there are apparently no rules or limitations whatsoever.

I'm glad you qualified that, because of course there is evidence of God, just nothing definitive. There is also very little compelling evidence that intelligent extra-terrestrials exist, yet many people believe they exist.

Extraterrestrials actually have the edge on God, as far as existence goes, because we do have at least one well-documented instance of intelligent life on a planet, and we know that there are many other planets. But I'm unfamiliar with any valid evidence for any gods. Do you have some?

It would make sense that God would not only be able to intercede on earth without leaving evidence, but that he would have reason to do so. If we knew for certain that God exists, it would certainly affect our freedom to choose between right and wrong.

Actually, that makes little sense either, at least for God as He is described in the Bible. From what I gather, that concept of God wants us to worship Him. Wouldn't it make it much more likely that He would get what He wants if He made Himself a little more obvious? In fact, for any concept of God, the obvious conclusion you would draw if you saw the dearth of evidence would be that if God existed, He doesn't want us to find out about Him.

Sounds like a loaded question to me! Actually, both a belief in God (or extra-terrestrials) and a belief that there is no God (or no extra-terrestrials) are uninformed opinions since there is little to no evidence to support them.

Like I say. More for extraterrestrials. Still not much.

But at least we've established that theists and UFO believers have much in common.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, if you're allowed to change definitions, then God can easily create a square circle too, by changing the definition of "square circle" to "kangaroo." Let's agree not to go there, OK?

You've already gone there. You are using two different definitions for "good". If you'll agree that "good for God" is the same as "good for humans", then I won't invoke any kangaroos.

Correct. In other words, something that is self-contradictory is not logically possible.

God kills a million people and it is "good". Hitler does it and it is "not good". Sounds self-contradictory to me.

Yes, that would also be a self-contradiction. Of course, most people who believe in the supernatural don't limit the supernatural to the natural universe.

But most who believe in the supernatural also believe that it plays a part in the natural universe. So the natural universe contains a supernatural element. I would call that a self-contradiction.

 

[Bri]

You've already gone there. You are using two different definitions for "good". If you'll agree that "good for God" is the same as "good for humans", then I won't invoke any kangaroos.

I didn't change the definition of "good." I simply pointed out that the criteria for a human to be "good" would almost certainly be different than that of an omniscient God.

But most who believe in the supernatural also believe that it plays a part in the natural universe. So the natural universe contains a supernatural element. I would call that a self-contradiction.

Nobody but you said that the natural universe "contains" a supernatural element (that would indeed be a self-contradiction). As I stated at least once before, the supernatural is not limited by the natural. I am three-dimensional. I can imagine a two-dimensional being living on a flat sheet of paper. He is limited by his world, but I'm not limited by his world. I can still interact with him and with his world. Again, why couldn't something supernatural interact with the natural? I don't see a contradiction.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

I'm just not sure which characteristics of God you believe the Problem of Evil has disproved.

Omnibenevolence comes to mind, but then it all depends on what you consider the greater good.

However, if the greater good is freedom, how can choosing "evil" be considered bad, since it is merely an exercise in freedom ? Certainly not because it entails consequences, because punishment is not a "natural" consequence of an act.

 

[Belz...]

Oh yes, in order to have the freedom of choice, one has to have at least "two things" to choose between. So that does imply "restrictions" to whatever it is that you choose.

The first sentence actually makes sense, Iacchus. The second one, however, puzzles me. How can you equate freedom with restriction ? I mean, if I can litterally do ANYTHING I want, without restriction, does that mean I'm not free ?

 

[Belz...]

Extraterrestrials actually have the edge on God, as far as existence goes, because we do have at least one well-documented instance of intelligent life on a planet, and we know that there are many other planets. But I'm unfamiliar with any valid evidence for any gods. Do you have some?

Woah! Stop... stop stop! Are you telling me that Zeus, Quetzalcoatl and Ra have not yet been shown to exist ? DAMN! My world crumbles.

 

[Belz...]

I didn't change the definition of "good." I simply pointed out that the criteria for a human to be "good" would almost certainly be different than that of an omniscient God.

Not if there is such a thing as an objective moral truth.

Nobody but you said that the natural universe "contains" a supernatural element (that would indeed be a self-contradiction). As I stated at least once before, the supernatural is not limited by the natural. I am three-dimensional. I can imagine a two-dimensional being living on a flat sheet of paper. He is limited by his world, but I'm not limited by his world. I can still interact with him and with his world. Again, why couldn't something supernatural interact with the natural? I don't see a contradiction.

I'm not sure the "dimension" aspect applies. If God simply existed in a state of "more dimensions", then he wouldn't be supernatural.

 

[bruto]

Oh yes, in order to have the freedom of choice, one has to have at least "two things" to choose between. So that does imply "restrictions" to whatever it is that you choose.

The first sentence actually makes sense, Iacchus. The second one, however, puzzles me. How can you equate freedom with restriction ? I mean, if I can litterally do ANYTHING I want, without restriction, does that mean I'm not free ?

I'm guessing that once we have made the choice, the exclusion of the thing not chosen becomes a restriction because for Iacchus cause and effect are reversible.

 

[Tricky]

I didn't change the definition of "good." I simply pointed out that the criteria for a human to be "good" would almost certainly be different than that of an omniscient God.

Well, you know, different critera for goodness sounds like a different definition to me.

Job applicant one: I've never murdered anyone.
Interviewer: That's good.
Job applicant two: I've only murdered three people.
Interviewer: That's good too, under different criteria.

Nobody but you said that the natural universe "contains" a supernatural element (that would indeed be a self-contradiction). As I stated at least once before, the supernatural is not limited by the natural.

Unless the universe contains a supernatural element, then a supernatural being cannot interact with it. That would seem obvious. There must be a connection somewhere.

I am three-dimensional. I can imagine a two-dimensional being living on a flat sheet of paper.

A two dimensional drawing cannot contain a three dimensional object. You can imagine a two dimensional being, but you cannot be a two dimensional being.

He is limited by his world, but I'm not limited by his world. I can still interact with him and with his world. Again, why couldn't something supernatural interact with the natural? I don't see a contradiction.

You have never in your life interacted with a two-dimensional object. You may have interacted with some objects in which one dimension was much smaller than the other two. They may even be said to represent two-dimensional objects, but they are not two dimensional objects. It is a logical contradiction to speak of the third dimension of a two-dimensional object.

 

[Elind]

Because perhaps the greater good is achieved by allowing the freedom to choose between right and wrong, as I said previously.

-Bri

Or Good and Evil?

This exchange has clearly been fun and interesting even though it sometimes seems to approach the angels on the pin category, , but while I've followed it a bit I haven't said much because I still think the whole issue is somewhat simpler, and the above sentence caught my eye for that reason.

I tend to feel that the difference between Good and Evil is essentially the difference between that which will kill us eventually (make extinct perhaps) and that which allows us to live and thrive. That applies on a social and individual level.

Whether we postulate a God that is one or the other, makes absolutely no difference to how that rule applies to us in terms of our long term survival. God might as well be Evil or Good. We still have to deal with each other and it's pretty obvious what principles work and which don't, and has been for millennia.

 

[Bri]

Well, you know, different critera for goodness sounds like a different definition to me.

Job applicant one: I've never murdered anyone.
Interviewer: That's good.
Job applicant two: I've only murdered three people.
Interviewer: That's good too, under different criteria.

An apple is good if it tastes good. A person is good if his/her actions are good. God is good if his actions comprise a greater good.

I don't see how that constitutes changing the definition of "good" nor do I see what it has to do with murder. If evil/good is a continuum, the person who has murdered three people is "less good" (more evil) than the person who has never murdered anyone. Do you feel that the people in your example are using different definitions of "good?"

Unless the universe contains a supernatural element, then a supernatural being cannot interact with it. That would seem obvious. There must be a connection somewhere.

I believe you've already had this discussion with jjramsey. There is no reason that a supernatural being couldn't interact with nature.

A two dimensional drawing cannot contain a three dimensional object. You can imagine a two dimensional being, but you cannot be a two dimensional being

Exactly my point, thanks. I never claimed that a supernatural being was a natural being. Although I am a three-dimensional being and am not limited by a two-dimensional world, I can still interact with a two-dimensional world. Likewise, a supernatural being that is not limited by nature can interact with a natural world.

You have never in your life interacted with a two-dimensional object. You may have interacted with some objects in which one dimension was much smaller than the other two. They may even be said to represent two-dimensional objects, but they are not two dimensional objects. It is a logical contradiction to speak of the third dimension of a two-dimensional object.

I never claimed that a two-dimensional object had a third dimension. Hypothetically, you can see how a three-dimensional being might be able to interact with a two-dimensional being, can't you? Isn't there a book about this called Flatland?

-Bri