How Would You Defend the Concept of a Benevolent and Omnipotent God?

[Voyager]

@Thudlow_Boink

Doesn’t this assume that God is subject to time?

Actually it assume he isn’t, since an omniscient god would have all time spread out before him.
My time math is for the convenience of the reader.

[Voyager]

@thorny_locust

I think it’s possible to get out of that one by positing a God who’s outside time: who sees/knows all of time at once, as a human can look and see multiple things within a given space at once.

Omniscience more or less assumes god is outside of time. Consider a 2D comic strip of infinite size. An “omniscient” 3D being would know all the contents of that comic and would always know it. A 3D “omnipotent” being could redraw any panel. You see how these are incompatible.

@thorny_locust

That would certainly fit with the ‘beyond human understanding’ theory. But it would also mean that God’s designing and intending all the consequences of everything – from a human point of view, simultaneously. Among other problems, I don’t see how that provides humans with free will.

I don’t think that affects free will. We beings in time have choice at any moment. God just knows what our choice is. Since we’re not omnipotent, not being able to change that choice isn’t a problem.
I know you can argue whether it is really free will since the result is known, but I think it is indistinguishable from free will so long as you are not influenced into a given choice in any way.

[Voyager]

@velcro

Responding to this, because I think it is relevant, in that God can be a benevolent experimenter, and the horrible things that happen are necessary to get data to improve the future.

Except performing lethal experiments on sentient beings without their consent is not “benevolent” in my opinion.

In their view God is a Tom Lehrer fan

We’ll murder them all
Amid laughter and merriment
Except for the few
We take home to experiment

And an omniscient knows the answer. It’s kind of like why high school physics experiments, with the correct results in the back of the lab book, don’t advance science.
The sentient part is what people who say god messing with us is like us messing with ants don’t seem to get.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Voyager

Omniscience more or less assumes god is outside of time. Consider a 2D comic strip of infinite size. An “omniscient” 3D being would know all the contents of that comic and would always know it. A 3D “omnipotent” being could redraw any panel. You see how these are incompatible.

I’m still struggling to understand your point. Terms like “redraw” or “change his mind” imply a before and after, which imply time.

[Voyager]

@Thudlow_Boink

I’m still struggling to understand your point. Terms like “redraw” or “change his mind” imply a before and after, which imply time.

Okay. Even if God is not bound by time, God understands time as perceived by humans. In the Bible he certainly gives times when he will do things. And he does things in sequence, like during the creation.
There is a problem. If God is infinite, and is omniscient, and can make decisions about what to do which he must be able to do being omnipotent, it makes no sense to talk about when he makes a decision. In fact, the action of making a decision implies time to some extent, but there can’t be a time before he makes a decision because that violates omniscience. Therefore every decision God makes or has made or will make in the human perspective of time is inherent in God, and was “made” always, infinitely far back.
Yeah that makes no sense, and is yet one more example of how a bi-omni god is incoherent. The more you look at it, the more the concept falls apart.

[velcro]

@Voyager

And an omniscient knows the answer.

filmore was assuming an omnipotent but not omniscient experimenter.

[Voyager]

Then he’s not god by the standard definition.
And I couldn’t resist the urge to quote Tom Lehrer anyhow.

[Czarcasm]

@Voyager

Then he’s not god by the standard definition.

That is only the definition of the Christian god, as viewed by most Christians, the end result of thousands of years of “my god is better than your god!” oneupsmanship.

[velcro]

@Voyager

And I couldn’t resist the urge to quote Tom Lehrer anyhow.

One should never resist the urge to quote Tom Lehrer.

[Spice_Weasel]

Is there a Biblical basis for the omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent triad, or is it just something Christians made up?

[filmore]

As for the Christian God, it seems like there are too many contradictions for that version of God to really be omni-everything. God may have said He was omni-everything, but that’s not the same thing as actually being omni-everything. Events like the Genesis flood seem much more like an imperfect God starting over after a failed effort rather than a God who knew what was going to happen. And there are many times in the Bible where it doesn’t seem like God really knows what will happen. He implores humans to do his bidding and follow his will, but it doesn’t seem like He’s certain about the future.

[velcro]

@filmore

As for the Christian God, it seems like there are too many contradictions for that version of God to really be omni-everything.

From a purely logical standpoint, there are too many contradictions for that version of God to really be.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Spice_Weasel

Is there a Biblical basis for the omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent triad, or is it just something Christians made up?

The Bible never uses those particular words (nor “omnipotent”). You may be interested in these old threads:

The history of Christian God's omni hat-trick

I’m remembering back to my days spent at a lutheran college and thought about the ideas that the Christian God was omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. I am only vaguely remembering that this was a much later concept than the bible but just really stuck as a construct that God has all three of these abilities. What is the history of this?

(see especially the posts by @C_K_Dexter_Haven)

Omni-benevolent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient

Hallo, First off, I guess I must be described as a Christian, at least that would be my cultural background. As a matter of fact though – I have never practised religion, it plays no part in my life, nor my family. I also have never read the Bible. Most of my knowledge comes from lurking places like this one, reading what is written and applying common sense to the arguments as they are given. I highly thank many of the people of this place for spending their time putting forward their points…

(see especially Post #6 by @Alan_Smithee)

[Voyager]

@Spice_Weasel

Is there a Biblical basis for the omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent triad, or is it just something Christians made up?

Some of the “proofs” of God’s existence depend on him being omnimax - that is the greatest, which is assumed to be a thing, and implies existence as part of being the greatest. Not in the Bible, but still significant.
God develops throughout the Bible from being someone who can be hidden from and who has children to the form posited by Christians. They explain away obvious departures from him being omnimax, so I’m not sure if that counts as Biblical support or not.
If you want fun, just listen to fundamentalists explanation of why God thought slavery was okay.

[glee]

Reading through this thread, there seem to be two schools of thought.

1. Those who present evidence and conclude that God is not benevolent and omnipotent.

2. Those who are already believers and produce arguments like "we cannot understand God’s purpose’ - so even if God slaughters babies, he’s still ‘benevolent’.

[Czarcasm]

@glee

Those who are already believers and produce arguments like "we cannot understand God’s purpose’ - so even if God slaughters babies, he’s still ‘benevolent’.

Which is a contradiction at best, arrogance at worst.

[RitterSport]

@glee

Those who are already believers and produce arguments like "we cannot understand God’s purpose’ - so even if God slaughters babies, he’s still ‘benevolent’.

For those believers, it makes me wonder how they tease out any meaning from God’s words. For example, how do they know that, say, God frowns upon homosexuality or whatever? Maybe when He said, “thou shall not murder” he meant something completely different. Who are we to try and understand the mind of God, whether it comes to the Ten Commandments, worshipping idols, or baby cancer?

[Larry_Borgia]

Have you looked into Gnosticsm? I don’t know too much about it, but from what I understand it has some similarity to this.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@glee

Those who are already believers and produce arguments like "we cannot understand God’s purpose’ - so even if God slaughters babies, he’s still ‘benevolent’.

The closest I have been able to rationalize why God (assuming God exists) allows bad things to happen is we do not understand God’s ultimate goal.

Consider a parent and their child. Maybe the parent sends the child to bed early or denies them some candy or scolds them. From the child’s perspective these are all bad things happening to them. Why would a loving parent do such things and cause them that stress?

Of course, from the parents’ point of view there may be very good reason for all of the above to allow the child to grow into a healthy and good person.

Maybe God wants the human race to develop into better beings and that means some pain along the way.

That’s all I’ve got.

[Voyager]

But you have to go the whole way here. Sure we’re better off defeating obstacles in our way. But what do you think of the parent who makes the child “better” by cutting off his leg? Or blinding her? Or drowning a sibling. Or, even better, killing the kid so he’ll never have to suffer a broken heart.
Nice God you got there.
I’m sure the children drowned in tsunamis had a much better life - especially the ones the Christians think go to hell for not having been saved.