Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

[Cypress]

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.

You're free to believe it's silly word games.

Decades and centuries of philosophers, theologians, and subject matter experts with educations far in excess of yours or mine have debated, written papers, and discussed the omnipotence paradox. Obviously many of the subject matter experts don't think it's a silly game.

Even people on this thread were confused about what constitutes omnipotence, because they tried to assert God could take actions that are logical paradoxes.

 

[Cypress]

I understand what they believed. The Greeks believed thunder was Zeus tossing thunderbolts from Olympus. MAGAts believe raping girls over 13 is A-Okay.

My position is that an entity capable of creating the Universe did so for a reason. It would be illogical for that entity to violate their own creation.

There is zero evidence of life-after-death, magic, miracles or anything else that violates the laws of physics. All of which indicates there's a reason why those rules are not being broken even if the entity could choose to do so.

Understood.

I am not rendering a judgment on whether the Bible is true or not.

I'm rendering a judgment on whether the God of the Christian faith, the God believed in by Christians, is supposed to have the capability of suspend the laws of nature and the laws of logic. I'm checking my beliefs at the door, and rendering judgment on a God conceived of by Christians.

 

[Cypress]

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.”

That AI statement has a whole history of thought and debate propping it up.

That conclusion only came about because people had to think in a sophisticated way about what omnipotence really means, and they had to contend with and think about the logical paradoxes that come with the claim of an all all powerful being who is unlimited in power and can do anything.

If the concept of omnipotence and logical paradox were so simple, silly, and self evident, you wouldn't have had posters in this thread trying to say God can accomplish logical paradoxes

 

[Cypress]

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

Feel free to tell the board the last time you saw a body resurrected from death.

 

[Cypress]

I understand what they believed. The Greeks believed thunder was Zeus tossing thunderbolts from Olympus. MAGAts believe raping girls over 13 is A-Okay.

My position is that an entity capable of creating the Universe did so for a reason. It would be illogical for that entity to violate their own creation.

I believe the authors of the Bible used a variety of literary techniques, including hyperbole, poetry, metaphor, parable, allegory, and historical testimony. There is no analytical history or true biography in it, because those genres of writing did not exist yet in the Near East.

There is zero evidence of life-after-death, magic, miracles or anything else that violates the laws of physics.

The laws of physics explain very little. And I don't like saying that because I wish we could rely on science to explain everything. Physics is a system of rules that make predictions of motion, energy exchange, and quantum field behavior. They don't explain why the laws of physics exist, why they take certain discrete mathematical properties, and they don't explain things like love, liberty, loyalty, friendship, freedom, beauty, or justice.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Understood.

I am not rendering a judgment on whether the Bible is true or not.

I'm rendering a judgment on whether the God of the Christian faith, the God believed in by Christians, is supposed to have the capability of suspend the laws of nature and the laws of logic. I'm checking my beliefs at the door, and rendering judgment on a God conceived of by Christians.

Yes, per the Bible, both OT and NT, God has that power. God flooded the entire planet, rained fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah, parted the Red Sea, raised the dead and fucked with Job.

According to Christmas legend, Rudolph's red nose saved Christmas.

 

[martin]

That AI statement has a whole history of thought and debate propping it up.

That conclusion only came about because people had to think in a sophisticated way about what omnipotence really means, and they had to contend with and think about the logical paradoxes that come with the claim of an all all powerful being who is unlimited in power and can do anything.

If the concept of logical paradox were so simple, silly, and self evident, you wouldn't have had posters in this thread trying to say God can accomplish logical paradoxes

I'm saying its simple in the context originally mentioned, the idea that logical impossibility imposes a limit on omnipotence. It's rather that logical impossibility helps to define the meaning of omnipotence. The quote below is taken from Wiki's entry on this subject, using the example of God making a stone too heavy for him to lift:

"George I. Mavrodes responded to this paradox by arguing that the question is self-contradictory. He wrote:

"On the assumption that God is omnipotent, the phrase "a stone too heavy for God to lift" becomes self-contradictory. For it becomes "a stone which cannot be lifted by Him whose power is sufficient for lifting anything."......it is the very omnipotence of God which makes the existence of such a stone absolutely impossible, while it is the fact that I am finite in power that makes it possible for me to make a boat too heavy for me to lift."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#cite_note-19"><span>[</span>19<span>]</span></a>

Additionally, he also points out how the question is sophistry. If the objector insists that it is a coherent question, one replies by affirming that God can create such a stone. It may seem that this reply will force one into the original dilemma. But it does not. For now, the objector can draw no damaging conclusion from this answer. And the reason is that he has just now contended that such a stone is compatible with the omnipotence of God. Therefore, from the possibility of God's creating such a stone, it cannot be concluded that God is not omnipotent. The objector cannot have it both ways. The conclusion that the objector wishes to draw from an affirmative answer to the original question is that the required proof that the descriptive phrase appears there is self-contradictory."

 

[Cypress]

I'm saying its simple in the context originally mentioned, the idea that logical impossibility imposes a limit on omnipotence. It's rather that logical impossibility helps to define the meaning of omnipotence. The quote below is taken from Wiki's entry on this subject, using the example of God making a stone too heavy for him to lift:

"George I. Mavrodes responded to this paradox by arguing that the question is self-contradictory. He wrote:



Additionally, he also points out how the question is sophistry. If the objector insists that it is a coherent question, one replies by affirming that God can create such a stone. It may seem that this reply will force one into the original dilemma. But it does not. For now, the objector can draw no damaging conclusion from this answer. And the reason is that he has just now contended that such a stone is compatible with the omnipotence of God. Therefore, from the possibility of God's creating such a stone, it cannot be concluded that God is not omnipotent. The objector cannot have it both ways. The conclusion that the objector wishes to draw from an affirmative answer to the original question is that the required proof that the descriptive phrase appears there is self-contradictory."

Great, thanks for showing that highly educated people have had to think this through in a sophisticated way.

The reason I don't think it's simple silly word games is because I don't believe you independently on your own really thought through the consequences of omnipotence and the logical paradoxes inherent in the claim of a being with unlimited power.

You had to read about it, from educated people, to come to your conclusions. It wasn't a simple, self-evident, silly concept that just independently popped into your mind.

So did I. I had to really think about this too.

 

[Cypress]

Yes, per the Bible, both OT and NT, God has that power. God flooded the entire planet, rained fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah, parted the Red Sea, raised the dead and fucked with Job.

According to Christmas legend, Rudolph's red nose saved Christmas.

LOL at Rudoloph.

The ancient people of Mesopotamia obviously experienced one or more catastrophic floods on the Tigris/Euphrates and wove it into their mythology. The Israelites seem to trace their roots to Mesopotamia, and they incorporate Mesopotamian stories.

I don't think Job was written as history. I think it's supposed to be a story that explains a moral dilemma, in the same way the Baghavad Gita does for Hindus.

The only way I could read the Baghavad Gita as history is if I was tripping on LSD!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

LOL at Rudoloph.

The ancient people of Mesopotamia obviously experienced one or more catastrophic floods on the Tigris/Euphrates and wove it into their mythology. The Israelites seem to trace their roots to Mesopotamia, and they incorporate Mesopotamian stories.

I don't think Job was written as history. I think it's supposed to be a story that explains a moral dilemma, in the same way the Baghavad Gita does for Hindus.

The only way I could read the Baghavad Gita as history is if I was tripping on LSD!

No doubt natural disasters played into the myths of yore. Sodom and Gomorrah are thought to be via natural disasters and, possibly, conflating the destruction of other cities by natural disasters in that era.

It's easier for people to rectify in their minds that the disasters happened because "they deserved it" rather than just random violence of the Universe. If they deserved it, then it wouldn't happen to good people. If it was random, they people would live in fear.

The Scientific Basis for the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

Sodom and Gomorrah: A Scientific Point of View The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, two ancient cities that were destroyed in biblical times, has fascinated scholars and researchers for centuries. While the biblical account attributes the destruction to the wickedness of the cities’ inhabitants...

wisdombegun.com

 

[gmark77]

You originally said we could have tried a demonstration detonation, so you didn't know

Gonna stop you there because it is clear you are just insulting me now. I've read extensively on this topic. My question was posed as it was for a reason.

I'm not in the mood to be insulted simply because I knew the difference and that Fat Man (Nagasaki) was plutonium and you didn't seem to know that Hiroshima was the gun-type Little Boy bomb which was Uranium.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I believe you might mean enriched uranium. Plutonium was also limited but used in FatMan on Nagasaki. Yes, this is true, but that was only a matter of time.

Is this "universal morality" time limited? Clearly the more moral point would be to demo the bomb. By definition. Inciniterating innocent children is not a moral decision, even if time is limited.

And I say this as someone whose father was on a troop ship for the SOuth Pacific right about that time and would have been in the horrific homeland invasion.

But we are talking morality here, not personal feelings.



ONLY if incinerating innocent children is considered moral.




Sounds like a made-up exemption. I thought we were talking universal morality here.




Wrong. The debate over "Just war" has been ongoing. It was never settled.




I'm an atheist. How can it bother me? I only point to it because it is technically part and parcel of Christianity and has been decreed by the faith to be integral (there was a heresy long ago settled that tried to pare out the OT from the NT. It was considered anathema. If you wish to talk religion please stick to the rules of said religion).

As such you are not allowed to simply dismiss the God of the OT because he makes you uncomfortable. (Although I AM curious what you think "universal morality" means if the author of said morality doesn't seem to follow such universal morals)

As an atheist I can point out the emperors clothing is missing.

A demo bomb could easily have been a dud. We only had the two bombs. More people, including children, were killed firebombing Tokyo.

IMO, the moral decision was to end the war ASAP....which is exactly what happened.

The moral of the story here is the same going on in Gaza today: Never start a war you can't win.

A Night of Terror worse than the Atomic bombs: The Tokyo Firebombing

Seventy-five years ago, the entire world was still at war. In Europe, the Allied armies of American, British, Canadian and Free French forces were pushing

sofrep.com

 

[Cypress]

No doubt natural disasters played into the myths of yore. Sodom and Gomorrah are thought to be via natural disasters and, possibly, conflating the destruction of other cities by natural disasters in that era.

It's easier for people to rectify in their minds that the disasters happened because "they deserved it" rather than just random violence of the Universe. If they deserved it, then it wouldn't happen to good people. If it was random, they people would live in fear.

The Scientific Basis for the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

Sodom and Gomorrah: A Scientific Point of View The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, two ancient cities that were destroyed in biblical times, has fascinated scholars and researchers for centuries. While the biblical account attributes the destruction to the wickedness of the cities’ inhabitants...

wisdombegun.com

Good summary, chap!

 

[gmark77]

A demo bomb could easily have been a dud. We only had the two bombs.

Correct on both counts. But the point we are discussing is universal morality, not strategy and balancing the number of dead American and Japanese soldiers.

I can't stress enough that I'm fine with Truman's decision for the very reason you note (and my pappy was on his way to the S. Pacific at that time on a troop transport, so I'm doubly happy).

But in terms of universal morality it seems to not be so "universal" if it has to be modified to suit resource constraints.

Either it is perfectly immoral to murder innocent bystanders or it is merely a convention we adhere to when it is convenient for our larger strategy.

I'd even go so far as to say utilitarian type arguments fail when discussing universal moral truths. One cannot simply declare an action moral because of the relative number who benefit from the results of that action.


Again, can't stress this enough: as a utilitarian I am more than happy with Truman's decision. It was strategically rational. But immoral if there is a "universal moral truth" that murdering innocent civilians is wrong.

 

[martin]

Great, thanks for showing that highly educated people have had to think this through in a sophisticated way.

The reason I don't think it's simple silly word games is because I don't believe you independently on your own really thought through the consequences of omnipotence and the logical paradoxes inherent in the claim of a being with unlimited power.

You had to read about it, from educated people, to come to your conclusions. It wasn't a simple, self-evident, silly concept that just independently popped into your mind.

So did I. I had to really think about this too.

Yeah, I did think about this before commenting. As for the Wiki piece I looked for their entry on the subject this morning. It's a tricky subject.

 

[gmark77]

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.

But each horn of the dilemma of any given paradox is, itself, possible for the Omnipotent. Correct?

Can or cannot God create an unstoppable force? If not then what is the limitation?

Can or cannot God create an unmovable object? If not then what is the limitation?

Seems then that the paradox is not as easily dismissed. Even if the AI machine dismisses it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Correct on both counts. But the point we are discussing is universal morality, not strategy and balancing the number of dead American and Japanese soldiers.

I can't stress enough that I'm fine with Truman's decision for the very reason you note (and my pappy was on his way to the S. Pacific at that time on a troop transport, so I'm doubly happy).

But in terms of universal morality it seems to not be so "universal" if it has to be modified to suit resource constraints.

Either it is perfectly immoral to murder innocent bystanders or it is merely a convention we adhere to when it is convenient for our larger strategy.

I'd even go so far as to say utilitarian type arguments fail when discussing universal moral truths. One cannot simply declare an action moral because of the relative number who benefit from the results of that action.


Again, can't stress this enough: as a utilitarian I am more than happy with Truman's decision. It was strategically rational. But immoral if there is a "universal moral truth" that murdering innocent civilians is wrong.

I've disagreed with @Cypress in the past on there being a "universal morality". All there is, IMO, are universal laws of nature, of physics.

Consider why there are no 100 year old civilizations where rape, murder and thievery are held in high esteem; such situations are chaotic and kill themselves off just as is happening in places like Yemen today. They are not self-sustaining. People either kill each other off or flee. It's human nature.

Civilizations that are self-sustaining share common traits such as respecting the rights of most and providing mutual protection from enemies. Is that "morality" or simply common sense survival? I believe it is the latter.

 

[martin]

But each horn of the dilemma of any given paradox is, itself, possible for the Omnipotent. Correct?

Can or cannot God create an unstoppable force? If not then what is the limitation?

Can or cannot God create an unmovable object? If not then what is the limitation?

Seems then that the paradox is not as easily dismissed. Even if the AI machine dismisses it.

The AI would say the limitation is the logically possible. An “unstoppable force” is a contradiction in terms if you mean unstoppable by an omnipotent God.