How is an atheist’s rejection of religion by use of logic, reasoning and evidence an apologetic? It’s not as though we’re defending a position; we’re arguing against a position, which isn’t the same as arguing for a position.
The latter is also hypocritical in most cases, since the same people who deflect criticism of God with the “he is beyond human understanding” line very seldom hesitate to turn around and attribute all sorts of good activities and intentions to God. Apparently, God is only impossible to understand when understanding him make God look bad.
So evil is a teaching experience?
That’s a poor answer. Evil tends to beget evil. Hate tends to beget hate. Suffering tends to beget suffering.
If you want to raise a child to be a loving and caring adult, do you treat him with love and care, or pain and cruelty?
If God intends for the existence of evil to help us grow as individuals, he’s woefully ill-informed about what makes human beings tick.
And any God with such a poor understanding of human behavior is clearly not omnipotent.
God creates new souls, God creates classroom to teach new souls, why doesn’t God just create educated souls?
Nitpick; clearly not omniscient. All knowing, not all powerful. God could be an omnipotent idiot.
Agreed. I got my omni’s mixed up! :smack:
I disagree. Omnipotence implies omniscience, though the reverse is untrue.
-
There’s no such thing as atheist apologia. Atheism is not a belief or an assertion, it’s an absence of belief or assertion. There is nothing about it that needs to be defended. It’s the null hypothesis, the default logical assumption.
-
The answer to all three of your questions is generally yes, but your questions are also moot to the discussion since the POE does not assert that no God exists, but only that no omnimax God can exist. If you want to assert that God is not omnimax, then you’re agreeing with the atheists.
Sorry for the ambiguous question. Trying again.
If there is support in Christian scripture for an omnimax God, where can I find it? Or was that something tacked on later?
Does Judaism assume omnimax - if so, where can I find support for it?
Does Islam assume omnimax - if so, where can I find support for it?
You won’t find one neat little cite in the Bible or the Koran, but you can find numerous quotations for each individual attribute – omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence both in the Bible and in the Koran. In Islam, they are literal NAMES of Allah.
In the Bible, you can find support for omnibenovelence in Psalms 18 and 19.
Omnipotence is supported throught by description of God as “Almighty,” and Revelation 19:6 actually uses the word “omnipotent”
Omniscience can be supported by all kinds of verses, a few of good examples would be 1 John 3:20, Job 37:16 and Psalms 147:5.
All these attributes are widely accepted within the religions in question, but if you want to argue that God is not omnimax, you should understand that that’s exactly what the POE is asserting too. You wouldn’t be raising an objection to it, you’d be conceding it.
There are also all kinds of verses, especially in the earlier parts, which can be used to argue against a tri-omni God. God searches for Adam and Eve in the Garden, God cannot defeat the famous Chariots of Iron, and God repenting his destruction of the world in the Flood. Sure there are lots of “explanations” for this, but it appears that God grew into being tri-omni.
A question, since you’re the expert - how much are the Psalms considered to be reliable sources of information? I was taught them as songs of David, as they say, and not as being divinely inspired. Would even a believer in inerrancy call the Song of Solomon inerrant? That seems really pushing it.
Psalms and the song of Solomon are pretty well universally understood to be poetic in nature. I don’t know of even the most hardcore literalist who would say that those works don’t contain metaphors, hyperbole and figurative language. They would still say the messages conveyed are “inerrant,” but they would not say that every line is supposed to be taken the most literal way possible. A “literalist” interpretation of the Song of Songs would be that it 's literally about Solomon’s wedding, but that it’s still a love song, not a newspaper report.
There’s a distinction between inerrantism and literalism. Even the most fanatical literalists have to recognize some metaphors. I don’t think that any of them actually think a literal beast with seven heads and a whore on its back is going to rise out of the ocean.
The whole “we suffer in order to learn” argument is a sign that the authors of Judea-Christianity really did not grasp the idea of omnipotence. In addition to your point, that He could make educated souls, it’s interested to wonder why He would want us to learn.
We want our children to learn, because they will not always have us to protect them and guide them from the bad things in the world, because it is beyond our power. The next best step is to teach the kids to deal with the issues and problems themselves.
But of course it makes no sense for an omnipotent God to need His creations to learn anything. It’s like I were to start kicking my dog, so it could learn to deal with me kicking it.
Thanks for that, Diogenes. It was an excellent list and just what I was hoping for.
A followup question: What’s the history behind rolling up these attributes into the familiar tri-omni attributes? I don’t think I could’ve come up with them on my own from these snippets and wonder when the tradition arose. Is the history of the tradition well-documented the way that the history of the trinity is documented? Wikipedia has a couple of quotes from Aquinas and Augustine that just assume omni* etc
BTW I don’t mean to create a bunch of cite-finding work for you. If someone points me in the right direction, I can do the leg work.
You covered Islam pretty well. Does the Jewish tradition accept that these quotes mean what Christians say they mean? Are they official doctrine in all the main sects of Christianity the way that the Trinity is?
I understand that the problem of evil goes away without omni* - which naturally led me to wonder where the tradition of omni* came from.
You are just falling back on the old argument that God is responsible for evil which is not true. We humans created the evil and we are responsible for it. Learning to see beyond the evil and rise above it is the responsibility of all of us, the world changes as we change.
Of course god is responsible for evil. If he’s benevolent and omnipotent, he’d end it. Since he doesnt, then he cannot be both those things.
God did not create the classroom, we humans did. Why didn’t God just recreate himself over and over? Because the “why” in the doing is lost. We have free will to follow different paths some known and some unknown, the more of us learning translates into greater knowledge and greater creations.
I wrote that from what I learned in my near death experience.
If I know a danger exists and I have the power to stop it, am I not responsible for the consequences if I fail to act?
Suppose I see a child playing on the railroad tracks and do nothing, even though it would be trivial for me to stop her, and would put me at no risk. Ten minutes later a train comes along and kills her. I didn’t tell the child to play on the tracks, and I wasn’t driving the locomotive, but I’m still responsible for her death, through my selfish inaction.
If God has the power to stop evil (as most Christians claim he does) and has knowledge that evil is occurring (again, as most Christians claim he does) then his failure to act is wicked and wrong even if he is not responsible for setting the evil in motion.
If God cleaned up our messes and made it impossible for us to make mistakes what could be achieved from creating such robots. Nothing. We have free will in order to help co-create with God eventually when we learn to be responsible in our thought and deeds.
We are just children in the spirit sense.
What you are missing here is that we are eternal and can’t be hurt in any way. You are identifying with your body which is not who/what you are. Finding out who you really are is another part of the puzzle.