Infinitely Powerful

[Bri]

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.

Tricky, I addressed this issue using your definitions here. Even using your definitions of evil ("against God's will") and omnibenevolent ("wants all good"), the Problem of Evil doesn't necessarily apply.

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 never said that he couldn't do the illogical, I simply said that if he did we would have no basis for discussing it, and the Problem of Evil and other logical arguments wouldn't apply. If God made a square circle, the result obviously would not be something that could be discussed within the confines of logic.

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."

You were the one claiming that God couldn't possibly be good:

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 take "God is good" to mean that God's actions are for the greater good, which is certainly possible.

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

The Problem of Evil does not show the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God to be logically self-contradictory unless you claim that omnipotence requires God to be able to do something that is logically self-contradictory (such as create a square circle). If that is your claim, then of course it will result in a logical self-contradiction! Unfortunately, that isn't a terribly surprising revelation to most people.

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.

Except for your definition of omnipotence, the definitions you gave don't seem to result in logical self-contradictions.

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?

Perhaps, but there is also plenty of evidence for various gods (probably moreso than for extra-terrestrials), although it might not meet your definition of "valid." However, evidence of intelligent life on this planet and the fact that there are likely millions of other planets with no evidence of intelligent life would constitute a lack of evidence where evidence might be expected, whereas there is no reason to believe that there would be any evidence for God.

Of course, none of that proves or disproves the existance of either God or extra-terrestrials, which was entirely my point.

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.

It is clear that if God exists, he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existance since an omnipotent God could surely make himself known if he wanted to. That said, he does a pretty good job of having people worship him if that's his goal (I would guess that if it's one of his goals, it wouldn't be his only goal). I would also guess that he wants us to worship him of our own free will. Hence, it would make sense that he wouldn't want us to know for certain of his existance.

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

You may have provided some evidence that extra-terrestrials can exist, but there is no evidence that they do exist. There is also evidence that God can exist (for example, the fact that it's not impossible for him to exist). I'd say the evidence is fairly equal in both cases, although one could argue that the scales are tipped towards the existance of God since there is reason to believe that if extra-terrestrials existed that there would be more evidence of them.

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

Many well-known atheists believe that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system.

-Bri

 

[bruto]

It is clear that if God exists, he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existance since an omnipotent God could surely make himself known if he wanted to. That said, he does a pretty good job of having people worship him if that's his goal (I would guess that if it's one of his goals, it wouldn't be his only goal). I would also guess that he wants us to worship him of our own free will. Hence, it would make sense that he wouldn't want us to know for certain of his existance.

Bri, are we talking of the biblical God here? I ask because the biblical account suggests that God did indeed manifest himself in pretty unequivocal ways from time to time, for example to Adam and Eve, and presumably to Abraham, Noah and Moses, all of whom are said to have had direct dealings with God. He spoke to Job out of the whirlwind if I recall, and convincingly enough, at least for Job's contemporaries, that the account became scripture. If those accounts have any truth then you can't say that God has chosen to be obscure. He seems to change his mind often about just how obscure to be. Of course We can't know the mind of god and blahdeblahde blah etc. but it seems to me an omnipotent God could figure out a more efficient way of reconciling free will with a reasonable assurance that we're on the right team. Persons of good will, good intention, high morals and intelligence are widely and inseparably divided on the question even of God's existence, while virtually every religion has a fringe of fanatics and fools who share the doctrines of its wisest leaders. Of course we can't know the mind of god and all that blahdeblahde blah etc. but that doesn't strike me as a very good result.

 

[Just thinking]

... If those accounts have any truth then you can't say that God has chosen to be obscure. He seems to change his mind often about just how obscure to be. Of course We can't know the mind of god and blahdeblahde blah etc. but it seems to me an omnipotent God could figure out a more efficient way of reconciling free will with a reasonable assurance that we're on the right team. ...

And isn't that pretty much as it would be in Heaven?

Once established there I would assume one still has fee will (that is assuming we really have it now) and certainly has/had contact with the Almighty. So if it's possible in Heaven, why not here and now?

 

[Bri]

And isn't that pretty much as it would be in Heaven?

Once established there I would assume one still has fee will (that is assuming we really have it now) and certainly has/had contact with the Almighty. So if it's possible in Heaven, why not here and now?

Just curious, why would you assume that we have free will in heaven? Even if we do, it is certainly limited since presumably nobody needs anything in heaven. Therefore, there is no incentive for anyone to do evil in heaven, even if those folks can choose a Big Mac instead of a Quarter Pounder. Probably not quite the same as true freedom to choose right or wrong.

-Bri

 

[Just thinking]

Just curious, why would you assume that we have free will in heaven? Even if we do, it is certainly limited since presumably nobody needs anything in heaven. Therefore, there is no incentive for anyone to do evil in heaven, even if those folks can choose a Big Mac instead of a Quarter Pounder. Probably not quite the same as true freedom to choose right or wrong.

-Bri

Well, if I'm that different in heaven than I am now (as far as thinking and choosing go) then it's not me -- but some lobotomized (for lack of a better word) zombie that may respond to my name.

And my main comment's thrust was to support bruto's assertion about God being able to grant free will with absolute knowing of God's existance.

Plus ... the argument can be made that if it's doable with certain humans (Noah, Adam, Eve, etc.) then why is it not doable with everyone?

 

[Darat]

Well, if I'm that different in heaven than I am now (as far as thinking and choosing go) then it's not me -- but some lobotomized (for lack of a better word) zombie that may respond to my name.

...snip...

But sadly (for most Christian concepts I am aware of) that is the case. You're hitting another one of the conundrums that comes up time and time. The whole "no marriage" in heaven and how could a parent be happy in heaven knowing (for example) their children were denied access to heaven for eternity and so on.

For all it's amazing success the Christian creed gets itself in some knotty conundrums with these ideas of benevolence (omni or not), perfection, omnipotence etc.

That's why in the end it always boils down to "god works in mysterious ways"!

 

[Belz...]

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.

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.

Assuming, of course, an objective morality.

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.

I submit a new type of phenomenon, then, to link natural and supernatural. After all, theists are far from having established HOW the two can interact. I'll call this new type of phenomenon: quasinatural.

I just like making up terms.

 

[Belz...]

The Problem of Evil does not show the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God to be logically self-contradictory unless you claim that omnipotence requires God to be able to do something that is logically self-contradictory (such as create a square circle).

That's not true. Assuming omnipotent means "able to do all that is logically possible" and omnibenevolent means "can only do good," then God cannot do evil, which sounds like a restriction to me.

If you, instead, contend that omnibenevolent means "DOES only good," then the whole discussion changes.

 

[Belz...]

It is clear that if God exists, he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existance since an omnipotent God could surely make himself known if he wanted to. That said, he does a pretty good job of having people worship him if that's his goal (I would guess that if it's one of his goals, it wouldn't be his only goal).

He's done a poor job, I'd say, considering the plethora of different religions, denominations, sects and individual beliefs. Even IF he exists, NO ONE is going to heaven. I'll be waiting for y'all down here. Mouahaha.

Just curious, why would you assume that we have free will in heaven? Even if we do, it is certainly limited since presumably nobody needs anything in heaven. Therefore, there is no incentive for anyone to do evil in heaven, even if those folks can choose a Big Mac instead of a Quarter Pounder. Probably not quite the same as true freedom to choose right or wrong.

I don't think happiness works without some ability to choose, and that opens up a door to evil, doesn't it ?

 

[Bri]

That's not true. Assuming omnipotent means "able to do all that is logically possible" and omnibenevolent means "can only do good," then God cannot do evil, which sounds like a restriction to me.

If you, instead, contend that omnibenevolent means "DOES only good," then the whole discussion changes.

Nobody defines omnibenevelent as "can only do good" and most define it as "does only good." Certainly an omnipotent being could do evil if he so chose.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Well, if I'm that different in heaven than I am now (as far as thinking and choosing go) then it's not me -- but some lobotomized (for lack of a better word) zombie that may respond to my name.

My understanding of the Christian view of heaven is that humans are no longer limited by their physical needs/desires (hunger, sleep, etc.). I'm not certain whether Christians even believe that we have bodies in heaven. If your understanding of the Christian belief in heaven involves you being exactly the same as on earth, please post a reference.

I seem to recall that some religions believe that our souls go to heaven and become part of God, which would be quite different than what we are on earth.

Other religions believe in reincarnation, which means that the soul and body are separated when you die, and the soul actually enters into a new body and becomes a new person. In this scenario, it is fairly certain that you are quite different when you die than you were alive.

-Bri

 

[bruto]

And isn't that pretty much as it would be in Heaven?

Once established there I would assume one still has fee will (that is assuming we really have it now) and certainly has/had contact with the Almighty. So if it's possible in Heaven, why not here and now?

Exactly, but I'm not sure it matters whether free will is possible in heaven. We are not given any reason to believe that anything in heaven is as it is on earth, including corporeality, personal identity, what might be thought of as membership in the human race, or anything else. But It's argued that there is free will on earth, and that one reason for god's obscurity is so as not to taint our free will. There are times in the bible where this is contradicted, and we must assume that Abraham, Job, and all those guys were not deprived of free will when they received their direct inspiration or communication from God. They were still free to obey or disobey, to be good or evil, but they had a pretty good idea who was boss. Their choice was, we presume (for the purposes of this argument, that is), an educated one based on reliable evidence. We, on the other hand, are not granted that luxury, and must rely on corrupted texts, the authority of other leaders, many of them barking mad or clearly lost to rationality, or on our own, muddled consciences. The world abounds with criiminals, sinners, alcoholics, abusers, heart attack victims and the like who have been "read the riot act" in no uncertain terms, yet repeat their crimes and mistakes. It's obvious that free will is not entirely compromised by possession of good information. I contend that free will would still be possible with a somewhat more obvious presence of God on earth. One good true revelation per adult per lifetime should be well within the capabilities of even a lackadaisical God. Of course the biblethumpers will tell us that we've had the revelation but ignored it, but I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a real one. Burning bush, voice from the whirlwind, a slap upside the head. There's no need for ambiguity here.

 

[Tricky]

My understanding of the Christian view of heaven is that humans are no longer limited by their physical needs/desires (hunger, sleep, etc.). I'm not certain whether Christians even believe that we have bodies in heaven.

Which is why neither the Christian or any other version of heaven (well, maybe Vallhalla) has ever appealed to me. As we discussed earlier on this thread, evil and free will that are necessary to make life enjoyable. Would I forget about the terrible things down on Earth? I don't want to do that. Would I not care? I don't want to do that either. How would I even know if I was happy if I had nothing to compare it to?

Christian heaven sounds like megadoses of Prozac.

 

[Bri]

Which is why neither the Christian or any other version of heaven (well, maybe Vallhalla) has ever appealed to me. As we discussed earlier on this thread, evil and free will that are necessary to make life enjoyable. Would I forget about the terrible things down on Earth? I don't want to do that. Would I not care? I don't want to do that either. How would I even know if I was happy if I had nothing to compare it to?

Christian heaven sounds like megadoses of Prozac.

Well, I won't argue as to how appealing the Christian view of heaven is, but it would seem that it isn't so much that you cease to remember or care about anything or to be "you" but that you are stripped of earthly needs and therefore free will doesn't have much meaning in heaven.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

Other religions believe in reincarnation, which means that the soul and body are separated when you die, and the soul actually enters into a new body and becomes a new person. In this scenario, it is fairly certain that you are quite different when you die than you were alive.

Not very useful, since those religions don't believe in the christian God.

Nobody defines omnibenevelent as "can only do good" and most define it as "does only good." Certainly an omnipotent being could do evil if he so chose.

Perhaps. One way or another, the term is a dabatable attribute of God, since he does commit what he calls evil, anyway. That's another debate, of course.

 

[Belz...]

There are times in the bible where this is contradicted, and we must assume that Abraham, Job, and all those guys were not deprived of free will when they received their direct inspiration or communication from God. [...] It's obvious that free will is not entirely compromised by possession of good information. I contend that free will would still be possible with a somewhat more obvious presence of God on earth.

I completely agree with you, Bruto. I've never understood this theist argument myself. How can more information LIMIT freedom ? If anything, knowledge GIVES you freedom by expanding your choices and making your choices (likely) more rational.

 

[Just thinking]

My understanding of the Christian view of heaven is that humans are no longer limited by their physical needs/desires (hunger, sleep, etc.). I'm not certain whether Christians even believe that we have bodies in heaven. If your understanding of the Christian belief in heaven involves you being exactly the same as on earth, please post a reference.

I seem to recall that some religions believe that our souls go to heaven and become part of God, which would be quite different than what we are on earth.

Other religions believe in reincarnation, which means that the soul and body are separated when you die, and the soul actually enters into a new body and becomes a new person. In this scenario, it is fairly certain that you are quite different when you die than you were alive.

-Bri

There are so many problems with the above that I find it difficult on where to begin.

First of all, my free will is a considerable part of what is me -- in that the choices I make regarding almost anything are what define me. Seeing some old person down a dark alley does not invite me to take advantage of the situation and try to rob them -- another person might behave differently. How I respond to charity is another example. All in all, how I behave, think and interact are what are unique to me.

Not being of a physical body is not part of the problem -- but not being of the same mind is. Take away or drastically alter the mind and we are no longer who we were.

If my soul enters a new body and becomes a new person, then how is that me and not this new person? If all is lost between lives, then it's like trying to say that an aluminum can is the same as it was as aluminum foil. Using the same atoms does not result in the same product -- it could, but then that's counter to your argument. Also, just looking at the aluminum can lends no evidence that it was once aluminum foil -- all past information is lost. If you can tell it once was foil and not a new product from aluminum ore, then you might have something.

 

[Belz...]

Not being of a physical body is not part of the problem -- but not being of the same mind is. Take away or drastically alter the mind and we are no longer who we were.

Problem: how do you define the mind without the body ?

 

[Just thinking]

Problem: how do you define the mind without the body ?

I'm working from bri's premise : "I'm not certain whether Christians even believe that we have bodies in heaven. If your understanding of the Christian belief in heaven involves you being exactly the same as on earth, please post a reference."

Given that we become purely spiritual but are still the thinking entity we regard ourselves as here on Earth.

 

[Bri]

There are so many problems with the above that I find it difficult on where to begin.

Although this discussion is getting completely off-topic, I understand your difficulties with these beliefs. Of course, that doesn't make any of them impossible. I would guess that those who hold these sorts of belief see humanity is something larger than the individual, and see death as a returning to humanity. Of course, some find the idea of reincarnation to be comforting, as it allows you (at least your soul) to live again after death, even if you don't remember your previous life.

My point was simply that we cannot assume that we have free will in heaven, at least not in the same way that many theists believe that we have it on earth. Of course, if you find that disturbing, you would probably find it particularly disturbing that there is no evidence that we actually have free will here on earth either, and in fact most scientific evidence would indicate otherwise.

-Bri