AsimovsProtege

First off, this is my very first post on infidels!! wooo!!

Now, I also post on a christianity site, and on there, I get the idea that the basic definition of God is:

one who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-good

However, this is a contradiction, and I was wondering if anyone could clear this up, or back it up.

If God is all-good, he cannot be omnipotent, as omnipotent means he can do anything. All-good implies he can do no wrong, however, if God can do no wrong, then he cannot do everything. If God cannot sin, he cannot be omnipotent.

Jinto

Weak argument.

All-good does not imply "can do no wrong," it only means "will do no wrong." The concept of both omnipotence and omnibenevolence is not inherently contradictory.

Now, when you add a universe like this one, which is horribly horribly wrong... THEN you get a contradiction.

AsimovsProtege

"Weak argument.

All-good does not imply "can do no wrong," it only means "will do no wrong." The concept of both omnipotence and omnibenevolence is not inherently contradictory.

Now, when you add a universe like this one, which is horribly horribly wrong... THEN you get a contradiction."

A weak argument?? hardly.

If God chooses to do no wrong...then he is just as fallible as any of us. We choose to do or not do wrong. What makes God so apparently great, is that he is pure good. Pure good means there is no room for evil, therefore he cannot do evil.

How is this universe horribly wrong? that's quite the bleak outlook on life.

rainbow walking

Hello AP and welcome to the forums.

You said: If God is all-good, he cannot be omnipotent, as omnipotent means he can do anything. All-good implies he can do no wrong, however, if God can do no wrong, then he cannot do everything. If God cannot sin, he cannot be omnipotent.

rw: Taking your definition of omnipotence means that God can do anything, even if man judges it to be wrong, and make it turn out benevolent. Ergo...no contradiction.

AsimovsProtege

"rw: Taking your definition of omnipotence means that God can do anything, even if man judges it to be wrong, and make it turn out benevolent. Ergo...no contradiction."

ok, first off - wrong = sin, or evil.

So, if anything god does, even if man judges it to be wrong, turns out to be good anyways...therefore, God cannot do any wrong.
Therefore, there is a contradiction.

Your argument also fails in that God deemed what is right and what is wrong, and he never changes, and never lies...according to the bible. So, our judgement of what is right and what is wrong comes from God.

Lobstrosity

First, let's leave the Bible out of this for now since we're only trying to debate whether omnipotence and omnibenevolence are mutually exclusive concepts. This can be done without reference to the Bible. rainbow walking's method of avoiding the contraction is a sound one so long as you add one additional caveat. Instead of saying there is some objective, external set of actions deemed "good," you simply define "good" as any action performed by God at the time he performs them. The key is allowing the concept of good to be time-dependent rather than forcing it to be some unchanging set of ideals. This by definition characterizes God as omnibenevolent while still leaving him the freedom to do anything he wishes. This solution only exists because of how poorly some Christians define "benevolence" and basically leaves the concept meaningless.

The other possible solution to this is to say that God is intrinsically omnipotent but only omnibenevolent by choice. That is to say, he could be bad if he wanted, but he choses not to, which results in a behavior pattern we would characterize as omnibenevolent. This is the same way people reconcile God's omnipotence with "free will." It is simply said that God does not infringe on our free will (assuming, of course, that such a thing exists) by choice rather than by external mandate. According to this solution, you could feasibly hold a gun to God's head and make him do bad things--but it would probably have to be one of those big omnipotent guns.

I don't think omnipotence conflicts with omnibenevolence so much as it conflicts with itself. The notion of infinite power to do anything is simply ludicrous given all of the logical inconsistencies that can arise from such a concept.

Inconnu

A sin in theology circles is an act against the will of god. It only applies to us mortal earthbound serfs.

Magus55

First of all, where the heck do Atheists come up with Omnibenevolent? That isn't even a word.


Now to answer your question AP. Your definition of Omnipotent is flawed in relation to God. Omnipotence ONLY applies to God, since no other being we know of supposedly has that trait. God can do anything that doesn't conflict with his divine nature. As Webster puts it, virtually all powerful - not - can do absolutely anything imaginable including that which is logically impossible.

Now, as you said - yes God is all good. Because he is all good, its impossible, by the laws of his own being and nature that have existed for eternity, for Him to do wrong. Therefore, if God were to do something wrong, it would violate his nature - which is impossible - God can't not be God. Therefore, omnipotence doesn't apply because in order for God to do wrong, He would have to not be God, in which case He wouldn't be omnipotent in the first place. Paradoxes are logically impossible, even for God - not because He isn't omnipotent, but because it violates His nature.

Ojuice5001

I think the argument is valid if put this way: God is defined as an unlimited being. But perfect goodness is a limitation. (Surely we would consider ourselves limited if we couldn't tell any lie whatever, for instance.) Therefere God is not perfectly good.

Dr. Retard

Um, it's philosophical jargon. Atheists didn't "come up" with it. Philosophers use it. Even Christian philosophers.

Quote:

Now to answer your question AP. Your definition of Omnipotent is flawed in relation to God. Omnipotence ONLY applies to God, since no other being we know of supposedly has that trait. God can do anything that doesn't conflict with his divine nature. As Webster puts it, virtually all powerful - not - can do absolutely anything imaginable including that which is logically impossible. Now, as you said - yes God is all good. Because he is all good, its impossible, by the laws of his own being and nature that have existed for eternity, for Him to do wrong. Therefore, if God were to do something wrong, it would violate his nature - which is impossible - God can't not be God. Therefore, omnipotence doesn't apply because in order for God to do wrong, He would have to not be God, in which case He wouldn't be omnipotent in the first place. Paradoxes are logically impossible, even for God - not because He isn't omnipotent, but because it violates His nature.

So by your conception of omnipotent, a being can be omnipotent even if it is unable to do something that other beings can do. That's a funny conception of omnipotent.