Maybe ‘good’ is a relative term. Example: I don’t like to exercise. I consider it ‘suffering.’ But there are benefits that outweigh that suffering and make it worthwhile when you look at the big picture. And God would be looking at the Really Big Picture.
Take death, for instance. From our point of view, it’s the ultimate disaster. But if no creature ever died, evolution would not be possible and the earth would be overrun with proto-bacteria.
That is a nice summation that gives one good explanation of why there is neither goodness nor evil in the atoms. It’s just vapor, here to provide a mis-en-scene so that we may act out our morality. Goodness and evil are in our hearts.
I used the term “all-powerful” to get away from the quibbling on interpretations of the omni words. And this isn’t about whether you believe in a god or not.
I would think that if you were arquing that your god was God then you would prop him up. So I can see how Jews came up with a Super-God. But can God be a higher being than humans and interact with our lives daily? Can the prayers of millions of people get his attention and prompt him to action?
I believe in a God. I have seen too many things to believe that we are just animals. I don’t understand the Atheist’s view that there isn’t something more than a biological presence.
But doesn’t a very powerful being that is loving, compassionate, jealous, and vengeful answer a lot of the questions people have about God? More of a greek definition. Couldn’t christians equate the saints to the minor gods of mythology?
so far, I gather that the Old testament’s use of the term “almighty” has the source for the all-powerful God.
No info yet on other religions views.
I have a hard time accepting the idea of an omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent God. Any two out of the three I can buy but not the complete set. Some argue that God has a plan and the plan requires some people suffer. Then why doesn’t God use a different plan that doesn’t require suffering? If God can’t think of another plan, then God isn’t omniscient. If God can’t follow another plan, than God isn’t omnipotent. And if God could have followed a plan without suffering but chose not to, then God isn’t omnibenevolent.
God is self-limiting.
What He chooses to do, He does. Nothing limits His potential to do what He chooses to do.
Omnipotence is merely a fun concept to throw around at bull sessions. It corresponds to infinity, and has about as much relevance to the real world.
The “existence of evil” becomes a major problem in such discussions.
But that is evil as perceived by humanity with limited data and at a given place and time. Perhaps the fatal illness of Guinastasia’s kitten is intended to serve as the catalyst (no pun intended) of a greater understanding of His purposes in permitting what we call evil, as explored by thoughtful believers (like **Lib.) and thoughtful atheists (like many of you). In such, though it causes pain to the kitten and grief to Guin., it is serving His purpose to a greater good. Or consider the amount of compassion, sent by strangers across an Internet bulletin board, that that resulted in. Perhaps that too is His plan.
Suffering is suffering. It’s a subjective experience you can’t argue out of existence.
People can posit that town’s getting blasted by volcanoes or kittens dying serve some ultimate goal beyond man’s understanding. Fine, I accept that. But an all-knowing God would know a way to acheive those same goals without the suffering and an all-powerful God could make that way happen.
People can say that God chooses how things happen. But if God can make a choice between different plans, some of which cause suffering and some of which don’t, in the pursuit of a goal and God chooses the plans with suffering, how can this be reconciled with the idea of an all-loving God?
There is no suffering in the atoms. I insist that you identify the “suffering” particle, or else admit that there is a metaphysical gestalt.
I love the whole “God isn’t good because he allows suffering” thing. It points to the whole ego of humanity. Why would a being a greater power than we are probably even capable of understanding (He made the universe for gosh sakes), have the same definition of “goodness” as you?
There are so many possiblilities for why He allows suffering. Some even our puny minds can come up with.
Take a father and a child. Lets assume that this is a totally loving father. In order for him to take away all possibility for suffering, he’d have to cover every surface in foam rubber, narrow the child’s diet to almost nothing, and limmit of dissallow social interaction (even that would cause suffering in some).
As for things like natural disasters…if earth was perfect, we’d have nothing to look forward to. The universe is imperfect…just as we are.
Does God suffer? If He does not, He could have made us in more than just His image: He could have replicated Himself. Ta-daa! No more suffering.
If God suffers, then He is not all-powerful. One suffers because something is getting the better of you.
I would not believe that an all-benevolent God would allow a mudslide to orphan and maim a child simply so we have something to look forward to.
Still haven’t got to Genesis. Tonight, I promise.
I disagree. You speak of suffering like it’s a bad thing.
Libertarian,
Now THAT’s a view we can agree on. I think maybe I just used “evil” too haphazardly, no? Now, does it stand to reason with you that God might cause specific events that would cause suffering among man? And even those these events might appear to be wrong, they have a greater purpose in his love for us? I do admit that in my previous posts my predestinational thinking (I still haven’t decided between election or free-will) took the upper hand. I have thought of how God might limit his omnipotence willingly and it makes sense, I’d love it if you’d give me some feedback on my first couple of questions up there.
Why would an omnipotent being limit his omnipotence?
What’s the point of being omnipotent if you’re not omnipotent?
I think it’s just a tad presumptious to assign {i]any* attributes to God.
No one knows the mind of God.
No one.
But there’s this rather famous book that gives us insight into the character of God. And it just so happens that this book also tells us to seek out the truth. That’s what I consider all of this discussion. Presumptious? Maybe. But I think most people that post here would agree that blindly worshipping a God and commiting your life to Him is a rash thing to do without at least thinking it over.
Slip,
The very fact that He can “limit” His omnipotence means that He is capable of even more than is implicit in the mundane connotation of the word. If He were not able to “limit” His ominipotence, then He wouldn’t be omnipotent, would He?
GT,
In the sense that you assigned it to God as an attribute in the slimiest way imaginable, yes.
No, it does not.
I disagree with Poly (and apparently with you) on this matter. I can’t buy into the notion that God allows (or worse, instigates) a little bit of evil for the sake of some greater good. God is Perfectly Good. He does nothing evil. He does not tolerate evil. He has, in fact, already destroyed it.
You are created in God’s image. Your free-will is the same, and of the same standing, as His. That is why He refuses to interfere with it.
I’ll search.
(1)Tell me how God can not be omnipotent?
I’m afraid I can’t tell you this. I believe that He is omnipotent.
(2) Sorry, I see only one. If I missed the second, can you repost it?
Lib, so if you say
Then it appears to me that you don’t believe suffering can be equated with wrong. I seriously don’t get why you insist that God can’t specifically cause suffering if you agree that it isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
To cause suffering would mean to deny us what we desire. God does not do this. He does not trump our will with His own.
When God decided to create beings with wills independent of His own, out of love, He abdicated a bit of his power.
Setting aside natural disasters and biological peculiarities for later discussion, it is not God who creates evil, but we ourselves.
He works with the world He created and which He allows us to manipulate, for good or ill.
Polycarp, I’ve never been persuaded by the “greater good” suggestion you propose for reconciling the fatal illness of Guinastasia’s cat with the omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God. This particular theodicy would seem to require a background principle holding that it is permissible to allow (cause?) evil in order to give rise to a greater good, but this seems to me a false principle. (I’m sure the various thought experiments are familiar – the surgeon who cuts up pne healthy patient to distribute his organs to five dying patients, and all the other counter-examples to consequentialism.)
It seems to me that the only promising (theistic) line of response to the Problem of Evil is to suggest that there will turn out to have been no evil at all. One way of doing this is by suggesting that what appears to be evil will turn out to be good when seen in proper context; this seems to me doomed from the start since I take it to be obvious that much of what happens is evil in any context whatsoever. Instead, I think one would have to suggest that somehow eschatologically it will turn out to be the case that the various evil things never happened (think of a time travel story in which various time lines are eliminated). I can see dim elements of this line of thought in some theologians, but I don’t think the line has ever made it all the way to the surface. I’m dubious of its ultimate coherence (thus, in part, my atheism, although I’m certainly willing to acknowledge that sensitive questions about the nature of time like this aren’t easily adjudicated), but it’s the only line that doesn’t strike me as an obvious failure.
Nonsense. I realize how little accuracy and intellectual honesty means to you, and now it is clear that you don’t understand the meaning of the word “omnipotent” and the prefix “omni”. A God who decides to limit himself to non-omnipotence would thence be non-omnipotent! You really need to work on your comprehension skills.
Jack, I am an agnostic because I am an empiricist on the issue of epistemology. A philosophical agnostic is one who holds that the knowledge of God and the transcendent is humanly impossible. Did you really not know this?
Here is the correct definition, from the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy:
So when I say that I’m an agnostic, I know perfectly well what that means. I’d get into the debate over the definitions of the terms “atheist” and “agnostic”, but that has been done to death already here several times. Please don’t assume I’m ignorant, and we’ll get along fine.
And I read Sagan’s book long ago and loved it!