Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

[martin]

Humans can physically manipulate circles into squares or polygons.

I'm saying omnipotence has to be limited, because it cannot include logical contradictions. God cannot make square circles, God cannot make 2 plus 2 equal five in base 10 digits, God cannot create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift, God cannot give free will but then take away the ability to choose sin.

That depends. I assume God could always do it.

How, or on what, is excluding logical contradictions a "limit"?

 

[Cypress]

That depends. I assume God could always do it.

How, or on what, is excluding logical contradictions a "limit"?

It seems self evident to me that omnipotence is limited because it cannot include logical contradiction.

God cannot grant free will on the one hand, but then take away the ability to choose sin. That's a contradiction. Just review this thread. People on this thread have claimed God could grant free will, but then make it that sin and evil aren't possible.

That's assigning an omnipotence to God he doesn't have.

 

[Cypress]

Not google checked. I've read extensively about the history of the atomic bomb. I highly recommend Richard Rhodes "The Making of the Atomic bomb" and "Dark Sun".



The people who made the thing seemed to disagree with you. You really should read the history of this it is quite interesting.



I get it. Universal Morality can be set aside for time-limited/resource limited options that MIGHT not give you the best result. Incinerating innocent kids is just a "nothing" in terms of morality when facing time constraints.




May have. Guess we'll never know. Seems that universal morality thence has no value since the options are driven more by convenience and resources.








Then you don't read much in the atheist discussion literature. In point of fact part of my atheism involved a critical assessment of the faith and its founding and ONLY document: the Bible. If the Bible fails then the faith fails. If the God of the Bible comes across as morally fungible then He fails to be logically consistent.

It is astounding to me that so few Christians and Faith Defenders actually seem to know what is in the Bible. And how fast they run away from what it actually says. Or how twisted their exegeses become in order to square the circle.

You originally said we could have tried a demonstration detonation, so you didn't know the US did not have enough enriched nuclear material for that. There's no shame in admitting you read what I wrote and then did Google research. I guess I didn't remember if uranium or plutonium were the limiting factor. The important thing is that a demonstration detonation was not feasible because we didn't have sufficient enriched nuclear material.


Why would atheists take it upon themselves to teach and lecture Christians how to interpret their teachings and scripture? Why would you care, and why would you invest the time and effort?

 

[martin]

It seems self evident to me that omnipotence is limited because it cannot include logical contradiction.

Yes, if "omnipotence" is defined as including the logically impossible, which is a ridiculous, self defeating way to define it, as in "God can make up be down."

What I meant by wordplay.

 

[Cypress]

Yes, if "omnipotence" is defined as including the logically impossible, which is a ridiculous, self defeating way to define it, as in "God can make up be down."

What I meant by wordplay.

So when people say God is omnipotent and can do anything, that is actually incorrect.

God can only do that which does not defy the rules of formal logic.


Naturally, some people consider this trivial nonsense, but if this were a formal logic class, it wouldn't be considered nonsense. This would be considered a key distinction in training the mind to think better and use language better.

 

[martin]

So when people say God is omnipotent and can do anything, that is actually incorrect.

God can only do that which does not defy the rules of formal logic.


Naturally, some people consider this trivial nonsense, but if this were a formal logic class, it wouldn't be considered nonsense. This would be considered a key distinction in training the mind to think better and use language better.

I’ve studied college level logic. Imposing logical impossibility on the theory of omnipotence is indeed nonsense.

 

[martin]

For what it’s worth I just looked up Google’s AI answer to this question. Here it is:

“No, most philosophical definitions of omnipotence do not include the ability to do the logically impossible, because a logically impossible act is by definition something that cannot be done. The inability to perform logical impossibilities is not considered a limitation on omnipotence, but rather a constraint of logic itself.

 

[Cypress]

I’ve studied college level logic. Imposing logical impossibility on the theory of omnipotence is indeed nonsense.

I brought it up because a claim was made on this thread that God could grant free will, but also take away the ability to choose to sin/evil.

That is the kind of omnipotence God cannot have, and it's the kind of omnipotence that some posters seem to feel God has.

 

[martin]

I brought it up because a claim was made on this thread that God could grant free will, but also take away the ability to choose to sin/evil.

That is the kind of omnipotence God cannot have, and it's the kind of omnipotence that some posters seem to feel God has.

I think it’s not omnipotence at all, nor can it be free will. It’s someone playing with words to make a silly claim.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That depends. I assume God could always do it.

How, or on what, is excluding logical contradictions a "limit"?

Given that the creator of the Universe made the rules, I have to ask myself why such a creator would choose to violate those rules. IMO, an honest creator wouldn't. They'd play by the rules set.

 

[Cypress]

I think it’s not omnipotence at all, nor can it be free will. It’s someone playing with words to make a silly claim.

The omnipotence paradox has been discussed for centuries by theologians and philosophers, so I doubt it is widely considered a silly game by the subject matter experts.

The Oxford Dictionary describes omnipotence as unlimited power and the ability to do anything.

It doesn't provide any caveats or limitations.

It's only when people started thinking about omnipotence in a sophisticated way that a long standing debate broke out about what omnipotence really means, and if it is limited by the rules of logic.

 

[Cypress]

Given that the creator of the Universe made the rules, I have to ask myself why such a creator would choose to violate those rules. IMO, an honest creator wouldn't. They'd play by the rules set.

From the biblical stories, it seems that God can temporarily suspend the laws of nature (resurrection from the dead, walking on water, etc.), but I don't think his power and omnipotence can defy the laws of logic. A claim was made here earlier that God should be able to grant free will, but then suspend the ability to choose sin/evil. That's a logical contradiction.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

From the biblical stories, it seems that God can suspend the laws of nature (resurrection from the dead, walking on water, etc.), but I don't think his power and omnipotence can defy the laws of logic. A claim was made here earlier hat God should be able to grant free will, but then suspend the ability to choose sin/evil. That's a contradiction.

Anything written by man is flawed. We're talking about the writings of desert nomads from 4000 years ago....albeit modified up to 1700 years ago. I wouldn't treat it as "gospel". <---pun intended.

Logic was invented by the creator, whatever that might be. The rules of the Universe are what they are. Roll with it.

 

[martin]

The omnipotence paradox has been discussed for centuries by theologians and philosophers, so I doubt it is widely considered a silly game by the subject matter experts.

The Oxford Dictionary describes omnipotence as unlimited power and the ability to do anything.

It doesn't provide any caveats or limitations.

It's only when people started thinking about omnipotence in a sophisticated way that a long standing debate broke out about what omnipotence really means, and if it is limited by the rules of logic.

Right, limited by the rules of logic, that is, the meaning of the word is so limited, not its capacity.

 

[Into the Night]

If free will contains within it the opportunity to suffer eternal torment for errors made in a finite lifespan I'm thinking free will ain't much of a gift.

So you don't want free will. You want to be a slave.

 

[Into the Night]

From the biblical stories, it seems that God can temporarily suspend the laws of nature (resurrection from the dead, walking on water, etc.), but I don't think his power and omnipotence can defy the laws of logic. A claim was made here earlier that God should be able to grant free will, but then suspend the ability to choose sin/evil. That's a logical contradiction.

What makes you think resurrection suspends the laws of nature, Sybil?

 

[martin]

Or to repeat the second part of the AI comment, which I think puts the matter exactly, “The inability to perform logical impossibilities is not considered a limitation on omnipotence, but rather a constraint of logic itself.”

 

[martin]

The omnipotence paradox has been discussed for centuries by theologians and philosophers, so I doubt it is widely considered a silly game by the subject matter experts.

The Oxford Dictionary describes omnipotence as unlimited power and the ability to do anything.

It doesn't provide any caveats or limitations.

It's only when people started thinking about omnipotence in a sophisticated way that a long standing debate broke out about what omnipotence really means, and if it is limited by the rules of logic.

I’m familiar with the paradox. There’s no great depth to it. It’s a word game. As for The Oxford Dictionary (Webster’s too) what is the definition of “anything” in the context of omnipotence? Also a word game. Our thinking is at the mercy of words when we let it be.