s0uljah

Hey Thomas-

Suffering is necessary for human freewill, I think. It sets the stage for trusting God, in my opinion.

Vorkosigan

I need to people to suffer in order to trust? And here I thought that treating people with respect and toleration, keeping one's word, obeying basic moral precepts like not stealing, and acting with love and kindness, created trust. To think I've been mistaken all this time.

Souljah, I have an 8 year old. Do you think if I tortured him he would learn to trust me? And how much suffering is necessary for me to inflict on him before he learns to trust? Can I just smack him around a little, or should I hold his fingers in the gas flame, or burn his face with acid?

Vorkosigan

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by s0uljah:

"Suffering is necessary for human freewill, I think. It sets the stage for trusting God, in my opinion."

First, this is not an adequate response if God is strongly omnipotent, as I said in the first post in this thread. If God is strongly omnipotent, God could cause all humans to trust Him, and trust him freely.

Second, imagine the following situation and tell me how that causes humans freely to trust God: A 1-year-old orphan is buried in a landslide and dies slowly. No one notices or ever finds out about it. Why is that necessary for us to have free will?

Third, I don't think we have moral free will. I can't perform the action "Snap my fingers and cause 1,000 people to suffer" -- God has arranged the laws of the universe to prevent me from doing that. Why couldn't He have altered them so that torture of babies is similarly impossible?

Primal

Plump:

Well one reason might be the dictionary definition of omnipotence, the fact that it is commonly understood by the vast majority of Xians I met as meaning "can do anything", and the fact that I really don't see any compelling disproof in your own arguments about that interpretation of omnipotence other then the fact that you and some small group of theologians don't seem to like it. I argue often times with people who define omnipotence in that matter, simply because they don't like the idea of Godbeing bound by the rules of logic.

Also your statement is not directly supported by scripture in any way:

Well does it say "anything but the absurd"? Nope, it says anything period.

This site for example seems to define omnipotence as absolutely anything:

<a href="http://www.errantskeptics.org/Omnipotence.htm" target="_blank">http://www.errantskeptics.org/Omnipotence.htm</a>

The one limitation is that the omnipotence is "self-imposed" which does not refute the idea that God can do anything, only that God doesn't feel like it.Evading the issue entirely. Such definitions of omnipotence are a dime a dozen among Xians and even in our dictionary(s).

Perhaps one should remember the old saying "it is to be believed because it is absurd".

Bringing up revisionist definitions in order to condemn the argument from evil, even though the argument from evil was never intended to attack such a view of God is very dishonest.

This person likewise:
The greatest power known to man---atomic energy---was unleashed on the world in our generation, and even greater than that is the power of nature. We hear on a regular basis of earthquakes in various places. We hear about the floods that do tremendous devastation and the forest fires. But there is nothing at all to compare with the infinite power of God.[/quote]

Hear that? The "INFINITE POWER OF GOD" was this person's words. So stop denying that such a definition exists or is commony accepted. You can find dozens of people online using this definition of omnipotence when speaking of God.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines omnipotence as "almighty" which means:

Again the argument from evil attacks the first definition, not the second.

Now why would someone be unfomcortable with the idea of God's power being limited by something?

Because it means that God didn't create EVERYTHING, certainly God could not have created the rules that limit his power, because that means previously His power was infinite and hence the argument from evil applies.

Now if these things were not created wheredid they come from? Were they eternal? If they were why can't other aspects of the universe be eternal?

The theist here is faced with a problem of how God could create everything and be considered all powerful without being infinitely powerful.

The idea of things existing without God making them exist raises many questions: how do these things relate to God? Where are these things, WHAT exactly is limiting God, etc.

The idea of omnipotence being limited power is still not widely accepted.

another site on God's infinite power:
<a href="http://www.aalulbayt.org/html/eng/books/god-in-attributes/infini.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aalulbayt.org/html/eng/books/god-in-attributes/infini.htm</a>

and another:

<a href="http://glorifyhisname.com/sys-tmpl/sermon6/" target="_blank">http://glorifyhisname.com/sys-tmpl/sermon6/</a>

yet another site: <a href="http://www.al-islam.org/GodAttributes/" target="_blank">http://www.al-islam.org/GodAttributes/</a>

yet another:

<a href="http://www.westbroward.org/Sermons%202/God3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.westbroward.org/Sermons%202/God3.htm</a>

Are you still going to deny that people do see God as infinite in power?

I do know that the Catholic Chruch has revised its definition of omnipotence via Thomas Aquinas but this viewpoint still remains in the minority.

Keep in mind though, that the argument from evil was never meant to apply to the limited definition of omnipotence only the strong definition. So you cannot say it's unsound because when applied incorrectly it doesn't work.

Alaytheia

Wow, I posted this and then got busy with work, so the conversation has run away without me! But I would like to pick up a few things. (I will admit right now that I skimmed a number of the posts rather than reading them fully.)

I wrote a whole bunch of stuff down here but as I thought about it more, I decided to change it all.

Perhaps by strict definition God IS omnipotent, technically, and *can* do anything, but by nature *won't* do a number of things (eg, contradict logic). God *could* create a scenario in which everything was perfect and no one had to suffer, but his character dictates instead that his created sentient beings have freedom of choice, even if that means making bad decisions that harm ourselves and others. And perhaps, since the Trinity by nature is a type of community, *we* were created for community as well, so that our freedom of choice affects everyone, not just ourselves. This opens up possibilities for both good and evil. Could he simultaneously give us free will and prohibit us from making bad decisions? Well that would be illogical.

And indeed I have seen you use the words "useless" and "gratuitous" many times throughout this thread, in regard to suffering. It may be true that much suffering is unnecessary for God's good purposes--in fact, it directly contravenes God's good purposes--but again he apparently feels that free will and relationship are more important... I have more thoughts on that but need to ponder them some more.

So it seems that the problem is that suffering indicates a lack of power in a Good God (in spite of your reticence to make this argument all about suffering!).

So let's look at it from another approach. For a moment, put yourself in my shoes. I do not (currently) need a proof of God's existence. I may, as I read the news, need a proof of his goodness and power. But since he has repeatedly demonstrated his goodness and faithfulness both to me directly and to millions of people for thousands of years before me, I have ample reason--through experience and authority--to believe that he is in fact a good and faithful God. Is he all-powerful? Again, my life experience answers a resounding yes... and so I believe, through experience and authority, that God is both good and powerful. Because of these things, the suffering I see around me cannot be gratuitous.

So yeah, we're depending on different premises. I say that God is good and all-powerful so there must be a good reason for suffering. You say how can God be good and all-powerful if there is suffering. I think that both of our perspectives can be backed up through human experience. It's just a matter of our starting points.

I hope I'm coherent. It's been a long week! I will ponder these things some more and see what I can come up with.

Primal

Alaytheia:
True, but if we are going to go by the strong sense of the word omnipotent then God would not be limited by logic and hence could have free will and eliminate evil.

To conlucde it would not be in God's nature to totally eliminate evil is to reject the idea of God being omnibenevolent.

To conclude that God "May have had a good reason" ignores the fact that no good reason is possible. One cannot name a good reason that gets around God's need to eliminate all evil and God's infinite power to do so.


Also, for those who's definition of omnipotent is not "infinite power" the argument from evil becomes more probable then absolute and looks like this:


1) God is powerful and good. Thus would strive very much to get rid of evil.

2)Given this we should expect to see signs of aid from God, a supernatural force, meant to alleviate evil and suffering.

3) Yet we see evil all around us with no signs of charity from the supernatural.

4) All supposed excuses for God's lack of help are spurious at best, and consist of unrpoven ideas like the existence of free will, that one cannot love without choice, God works in mysertious ways etc.

5: Hence because we do not see any supernatural acts of goodness, that would be expected if a good God was real, and because the given excuses for such a failure to act are superfluous, it is reasonable to conclude that God does not exist.

6) Hence God does not exist.

This argument is probable because given its premises are true the conclusion does not necessarily follow. However the conclusion is likely.

Primal

Amos: But if God was the first cause then imperfection still arose from God. Also to deny good and evil, suffering and happiness, is to deny basic facts on the basis of questionable speculation.

Amos

But Primal, all of creation is good and nothing in creation is evil or imperfect. We may not be happy with mosquitoes these days but they are also good in their own way. Even a rotten apple is good in its own way.

It is because we are co-creators with God that our knowledge of good and bad can make a valuable contribution. This is true not just for our survival but also the vitality of our next generation(s). If, as I hold, Intelligent Design is built into the species sense perception via our ego awareness is required to observe what the competition is doing so we my adapt and survive in a compettive bio and socio environment. As we learn we tie images of reality into our soul and it is these images that become part of the omniscience for the next generations (also the sins of our forefathers). In other words, we, albeit unknowingly, keep our God abreast of the current state of affairs which is retained in our soul in the form of entropy (our omniscience is equal to our "Thousand Year Reign" which is our richess in heaven).

Evil and suffering are the negative sides needed to make good and happiness known. They are reflections of our senses and since we must go by our senses they serve a purpose and are therefore good. Of course they are good and should not be dismissed or neglected.

NoDeity

It sounds like God needs our help to keep up. Is God then imperfect?

You believe in a limited God, then. A perfect, all-powerful God should be able figure out how to create good and happiness without having to permit tragedies such as the death by starvation of innocent children -- unless he doesn't want to.

Brad

Thomas Metcalf

Thanks for your response.

Originally posted by Alaytheia:

"Perhaps by strict definition God IS omnipotent, technically, and *can* do anything, but by nature *won't* do a number of things (eg, contradict logic). God *could* create a scenario in which everything was perfect and no one had to suffer, but his character dictates instead that his created sentient beings have freedom of choice, even if that means making bad decisions that harm ourselves and others. And perhaps, since the Trinity by nature is a type of community, *we* were created for community as well, so that our freedom of choice affects everyone, not just ourselves. This opens up possibilities for both good and evil. Could he simultaneously give us free will and prohibit us from making bad decisions? Well that would be illogical."

Well, it sounds as if you're saying God is not strongly omnipotent. A strongly omnipotent God would be able to give us free will and prohibit us from making bad decisions. If this is so, what kind of omnipotent is God? On the other hand, if you're saying God is strongly omnipotent, then suffering is just suffering. There's no benefit to having it unless God values suffering apart from anything else. This sort of being is most certainly morally imperfect.

"It may be true that much suffering is unnecessary for God's good purposes--in fact, it directly contravenes God's good purposes--but again he apparently feels that free will and relationship are more important... I have more thoughts on that but need to ponder them some more."

Well, maybe God feels free will and relationship are more important than a lack of suffering, but if He doesn't wish, all else equal, that humans experience less intense suffering, He's morally imperfect. And we are entitled to use "all else equal" if God is strongly omnipotent, but not if God is not strongly omnipotent.

"So yeah, we're depending on different premises. I say that God is good and all-powerful so there must be a good reason for suffering. You say how can God be good and all-powerful if there is suffering. I think that both of our perspectives can be backed up through human experience. It's just a matter of our starting points."

Again, we need your definition of "omnipotent," because a strongly omnipotent being can have no reason for suffering except that He doesn't mind if suffering exists. Unless you have a deductive argument for God's existence, anything you offer will not stand up to the deductive argument I'm advancing in this thread.

I would also like to know why you think you've observed things that lead you to believe the omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being that created the universe and cares about humanity exists. What specific observations lead you to this conclusion? (Please take into account Ockham's Razor.)

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Metcalf ]</p>