Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Omnipotence and the Existence of Evil
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 1 of 25 (40967)
05-22-2003 3:52 AM


I believe it's Crashfrog I was hoping to woo here with this topic. It may have been Nosy Ned. My memory is so much worse than it was when I was younger.
Anyway, one of them occasionally signs off with a statement that God is either powerless, immoral or both, because of the great evil in the world. I didn't have a good answer to this, and I wanted one, so I even checked out a book from the library called _The Omnipotence of God_ by Howard Redmond. Mostly, it was a horrible disappointment. The best he could do was, "Another important conclusion of this book is that the finite-infinite category be dropped from theological discourse...this in no sense implies God's finitude, but only the applicability of the category to divine reality."
What that means is that he's not going to try to claim God is infinitely powerful, because that brings up a real problem with the existence of evil. Can't an omnipotent God create a universe with free will but without evil? In the end, Redmond says, "I really don't want to answer that question, so I'm going to say God's omnipotent, but not infinitely omnipotent."
I guess you can be that silly in theology school.
He does, however, bring up David Hume, about whom I know almost nothing, but I was interested in the quotes in this book. Hume has a character named Philo who suggests, "It would seem that God must be either impotent or malevolent, for if he is neither, why should there be evil in the world?" Since that is the very topic I wanted to address, I want to put forth Redmond's treatment of Hume for discussion.
This writer says that while we cannot necessarily reconcile an omnipotent and good God with a universe with so much suffering, we also cannot rule both out. He quotes Hume as saying, "Pain or misery in man is compatible with infinite power and goodness in the Deity." He says, however, that for Hume, mere compatibility was not enough.
To sum up, he says, "In the _Dialogues_, Cleanthes, with whom Hume most closely identifies himself, observes that there is no necessary conflict between divine goodness and divine power. To be sure, there is a _possible_ conflict between them."
That said as a long introduction, my position is that it is logically possible for an omnipotent and beneficent Creator to create a universe in which evil is possible and suffering is common, and that a kind Creator would not necessarily intervene in every circumstance of evil and suffering, leaving such intervention to the mercy or lack of it in his creatures.
That would not be the first thing I would expect, but because I believe in God, and believe I have experienced God, and because I think that the God I believe in claims to be Creator of the universe, and I see that evil and suffering do exist, I ask the question, "Is it logically impossible for what I see and believe to be true."
My answer is no. I think an omnipotent and moral Creator could create the universe we see.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by compmage, posted 05-22-2003 7:34 AM truthlover has replied
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 05-22-2003 11:34 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2003 1:13 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 13 by NeoPagan, posted 05-29-2003 5:47 PM truthlover has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 2 of 25 (40989)
05-22-2003 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
05-22-2003 3:52 AM


truthlover writes:
That said as a long introduction, my position is that it is logically possible for an omnipotent and beneficent Creator to create a universe in which evil is possible and suffering is common, and that a kind Creator would not necessarily intervene in every circumstance of evil and suffering, leaving such intervention to the mercy or lack of it in his creatures.
Only if you limited omnipotence or define beneficent in such a way that God could be willing to allow evil and suffering while at the same time being capable of removing them and still be considered beneficent. Which kinda defeats the point.
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 05-22-2003 3:52 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by truthlover, posted 05-22-2003 9:24 AM compmage has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 3 of 25 (40998)
05-22-2003 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by compmage
05-22-2003 7:34 AM


quote:
Only if you...define beneficent in such a way that God could be willing to allow evil and suffering while at the same time being capable of removing them and still be considered beneficent. Which kinda defeats the point.
I think most people who have believed in an omnipotent and beneficent God in the past have defined beneficent in just such a way. Why does it defeat the point?
That definition seems worse if you believe this life is all there is.
Limiting omnipotence would mean limiting it so much that God can't protect victims, and that does seem to defeat the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by compmage, posted 05-22-2003 7:34 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by compmage, posted 05-22-2003 10:40 AM truthlover has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 4 of 25 (41005)
05-22-2003 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by truthlover
05-22-2003 9:24 AM


truthlover writes:
I think most people who have believed in an omnipotent and beneficent God in the past have defined beneficent in just such a way. Why does it defeat the point?
I think we understand the meaning of the word differently.
Dictionary.com defines it like this;
1) Characterized by or performing acts of kindness or charity.
2) Producing benefit; beneficial.
Given the definition above it is posible to be morally repulsive, but provided you occassionally perform a benificial act you would be considered beneficent. If this is how you were using the word then you are correct. It does however allow that God might not be worthy of worship. Which, if your goal is to convert people to the worship of this particular God, kinda defeats the purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by truthlover, posted 05-22-2003 9:24 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by truthlover, posted 05-22-2003 3:22 PM compmage has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 25 (41011)
05-22-2003 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
05-22-2003 3:52 AM


It wasn't me! I just watch those kind of arguments go around in circles and get all tangled up and end up no where in particular. (to muddle a bunch of metaphors).
It isn't really interesting to me, at least not interesting enough to embark on something that seems sure to be a waste of time and energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 05-22-2003 3:52 AM truthlover has not replied

  
NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 25 (41012)
05-22-2003 11:57 AM


A lot of the philosophical tangles that develop re. omnipotence vs. evil and suffering pre-suppose that the sole purpose of this life is everyone to exist in a state of unearned, unmitigated bliss.
That need not be the case even if the universe (in a metaphysical sense) is ultimately good.
Maybe the goal is to find the path to bliss regardless of the circumstances.
-Neil

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 25 (41022)
05-22-2003 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
05-22-2003 3:52 AM


I think he's talking to me.
I dunno. It just seems to me that rather than peform a bunch of logical and moral gymnastics to arrive at a Steward of the Universe who allows it to be in such a state, it's simpler to believe that no such being exists. That's the position I take.
I'll understand, however, if that's not an option for you. As you've said you've found sufficient, compelling evidence from your own experience to accept such a god.
Personally, I haven't. And there's no real way to know. I don't personally find your ideas of god compelling, but I also don't find them contradictory. If that makes any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 05-22-2003 3:52 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by truthlover, posted 05-22-2003 3:15 PM crashfrog has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 8 of 25 (41039)
05-22-2003 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
05-22-2003 1:13 PM


Well, that was easy. I actually hate discussions like this, but your (Crash's) occasional reference to the omnipotence/evil/morality thing seemed a legitimate question that I couldn't just let go.
If everyone's going, "Well, whatever, if it's good enough for you, great, but it not's good enough for me," I'm really happy to leave it there.
Back to facts, fossils, and all that nice, concrete stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2003 1:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2003 4:46 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 9 of 25 (41040)
05-22-2003 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by compmage
05-22-2003 10:40 AM


quote:
It does however allow that God might not be worthy of worship.
Here, we agree, at least on the "might" part.
I would grant the burden of proof is on the theists (like me) who say that God ought to be worshipped and served. In the twentieth century, that proof is sorely lacking, not because of the increase in scientific knowledge, but because of the lack of a powerful and benevolent spiritual group that could display the power and benevolence of the Creator we assert exists and ought to be worshipped.
For me, the whole issue is easy. The time is coming when we'll have something to show that impresses more than just ourselves, or I really am wrong, and I'll have to join you guys. For the moment, I'm impressed.
Give us some time...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by compmage, posted 05-22-2003 10:40 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by compmage, posted 05-22-2003 3:39 PM truthlover has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 10 of 25 (41041)
05-22-2003 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by truthlover
05-22-2003 3:22 PM


truthlover writes:
For me, the whole issue is easy. The time is coming when we'll have something to show that impresses more than just ourselves, or I really am wrong, and I'll have to join you guys. For the moment, I'm impressed.
And until such time I see no reason to suppose the existance of a God.
I have one question though, how long are you willing to wait before deciding that maybe the evidence you are expecting isn't coming?
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by truthlover, posted 05-22-2003 3:22 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by truthlover, posted 05-22-2003 5:10 PM compmage has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 25 (41043)
05-22-2003 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by truthlover
05-22-2003 3:15 PM


Well, that was easy. I actually hate discussions like this, but your (Crash's) occasional reference to the omnipotence/evil/morality thing seemed a legitimate question that I couldn't just let go.
If everyone's going, "Well, whatever, if it's good enough for you, great, but it not's good enough for me," I'm really happy to leave it there.
I'm glad we could take a stab at it. When it comes down to ineffability arguments, I can't really argue with that, by definition. But if it's enough for you, that's fine. I guess I'm limited by my need for a god, if one exists, to be approachable on an intellectual level. Or something.
What I take issue with is the assertation that the problem of evil vs. omnipotent god issue DOES have a rational explanation, if I only cared to open the bible and have some faith and paradoxically, not think about it so much. That just seems dumb, and it's the kind of thing that's very much in vogue with the more biblically literalist churches, like my old one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by truthlover, posted 05-22-2003 3:15 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 12 of 25 (41045)
05-22-2003 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by compmage
05-22-2003 3:39 PM


quote:
I have one question though, how long are you willing to wait before deciding that maybe the evidence you are expecting isn't coming?
Ah, a question that's not so difficult to handle as philosophical arguments.
It took me till, say, 1986 to figure out the Christianity I was a part of was failing at everything we claimed Christianity could do for a person. I kept looking, in hope, for some branch that would produce the things Christianity claims it will produce. I started giving up hope around 93, and I was on the verge of quitting my search in 1995. My wife was already telling me I was chasing a pipe dream by then.
Then we found what we were looking for. It's small, but as it is written, "Don't despise the day of small things." When the group we are a part of now stops being exactly what we expected to find when we began searching for a Christianity that's potent and real, then I'll probably give up. Until then, our life's pretty exciting, very unusual, and leaves me with a lot of hope that there's really something coming. I wish I could show it to you. You might not agree, but I reckon you'd certainly understand.
So my answer is, it sure looks like things are heading in exactly the direction I would hope they would be, and as long as that's true, I see no reason to lose hope at all. If this crashes and burns, then I can't imagine I'd have much, if any, faith left in me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by compmage, posted 05-22-2003 3:39 PM compmage has not replied

  
NeoPagan
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 25 (41729)
05-29-2003 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
05-22-2003 3:52 AM


"That would not be the first thing I would expect, but because I believe in God, and believe I have experienced God, and because I think that the God I believe in claims to be Creator of the universe, and I see that evil and suffering do exist, I ask the question, "Is it logically impossible for what I see and believe to be true."
I believe that what we see and believe to be true is actually an "illusion" that we have created ourselves for a purpose that involves growth and evolution. Suppose we "agreed" with God and helped him create the "illusion" of pain and suffering and evil before we actually came into this existence? Suppose we have never actually experienced anything that we did not "agree" to experience beforehand & that we came into this life for the express purpose of experiencing the darkness? This would be consistent with a good and benevolent God and with the existence of pain and suffering. Of course, the next question would be "why" we would agree to such a thing. I believe we did so to "experience" and to understand who we are. You can't comprehend "light" unless you have also experienced "dark." You can't truly appreciate "joy" if you don't also have some concept of "despair." I also believe that the Eastern belief in Karma and reincarnation are very relevant beliefs that would add to belief in the existence of a benevolent and just God. Karma would say that we are simply part of a "Cause and Effect" system of balance, and that whatever our actions are towards another, we will at some point experience exactly that (The Biblical concept of "Do unto others.") Reincarnation asserts that nobody gets a better lifetime than anyone else or is less free of suffering. In the balance of many lifetimes, we all experience being beautiful, ugly, rich, poor, black, white, predator, victim, etc., until we have had the entire human experience and our souls have "evolved." This makes much more sense to me than the Christian struggle of trying to figure out a benevolent God & a horrific world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 05-22-2003 3:52 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2003 11:10 PM NeoPagan has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 25 (41757)
05-29-2003 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NeoPagan
05-29-2003 5:47 PM


I believe that what we see and believe to be true is actually an "illusion" that we have created ourselves for a purpose that involves growth and evolution.
So, then, you're saying we're bascially in the Matrix?
What I've always wondered is, if reality is just a consensual illusion, why is it that no matter how hard I convince myself that I have Jedi powers, I can't TK a beer in from the fridge just by concentrating?
I mean, I can really convince myself that I can move things with my mind, but when I try, it doesn't work. Clearly there's some objective reality to... reality. Otherwsie we'd be able to change it just by thinking hard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NeoPagan, posted 05-29-2003 5:47 PM NeoPagan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NeoPagan, posted 05-30-2003 4:20 PM crashfrog has replied

  
NeoPagan
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 25 (41802)
05-30-2003 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
05-29-2003 11:10 PM


Yes, I believe we are in a situation very similar to the Matrix, except that I believe we voluntarily created it.
There are people who can actually move things by concentrating very hard. I've seen people in person who bend spoons, etc. by concentrating. I've seen people who are very much able to "manifest" whatever it is they want in their reality to a greater extent than others. I've seen people in churches who can produce "miracles" etc. (they believe God is doing it for them, but, as I believe we all actually ARE God having a human experience--part of an illusion of small, separate parts that are actually a whole--I believe they are actually creating it themselves). I believe part of it has to do with our minds and the fact that we only use about 10% of the power we have. I also believe it has to do with a level of "consciousness" and "awareness" that few of us ever achieve until we reach a pretty advanced state of evolvement. (Many people believe that "soul age" or how many lives we've actually had on this earth have a great deal to do with our abilities and how able we are to adjust and do well with the situations we encounter here. You wouldn't expect a five year old to do what a 40 year old could do). Metaphysic people also believe that there are many "planes" of learning & growth besides earth, but it seems to be a general consensus that earth is one of the very hardest "schools", and that everybody (no matter how badly they may appear to be doing) is very strong and courageous for making the decision to come here at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2003 11:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2003 4:59 PM NeoPagan has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024