Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Astro Cat]

It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?

[Leontiskos]

I won't be able to stick around in this thread, but since I am one of the only classical theists on this board I will offer an initial response or two.

It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?

Since moral goodness presupposes freedom and choice, one cannot be created morally good (much less omnibenevolent). I think we've argued about this before in more detail, but the only created beings who are incapable of evil are unfree beings. Thus God could have avoided any possibility of evil by deciding not to create free beings, but there's really no other way than that.

But in general your definitions aren't obvious. For example, what does omniscience mean? Omniscience in God is bound up with his infinitude and the fact that he is the creator of everything that exists. But finite beings could never understand God, or the act of creation, or presumably even the term of creation. For instance, what would it even mean to know everything about a particular dandelion? Perhaps on materialism the dandelion is reducible to material quantities which could each be tied to propositions, but materialism seems to be quite silly, and it has no place in a theistic universe. Your usage of "omniscience" seems to imply that there is some stopping point of knowledge, such that science could eventually just come to know everything by stacking up fact after fact. But is that really so? I rather doubt that science could ever exhaust essence or existence (what-ness or that-ness).

Hope you're doing well

[Leontiskos]

...the only created beings who are incapable of evil are unfree beings...

Well, that was a bit sloppy. I meant to say that the only created beings who are guaranteed to be incapable of evil are unfree beings. Free beings can become incapable of evil by means of their free will, but there is no guarantee.

[Good_Egg]

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?

Hi Astro Cat.

Any question that starts "Why did God..." is probably the wrong question. One of the traditional attributes of God is inscrutability, and you'd be well-advised to treat warily anybody who claims too great an understanding of what is or was in God's mind.

I guess your question amounts to whether a universe without evil is conceivable ? Which is a question about the nature of evil. Which is a fit subject for moral philosophy.

I note that you lump together evil and suffering, and there may be a worthy topic there.

Being omniscient is so far from human experience that it's hard to know anything about what that would be like.

But I'd guess that most of us experience at least a few moments of something approaching omnibenevolence. Maybe when we wake up well-rested in a comfy bed, not yet engaged with the complexities of the world, imagining everyone else in the universe to be just like us really, and wish them all well.

But maybe that's not what you wanted to discuss ?

[Pattern-chaser]

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?

I suppose you could ask Her? That's also a sort of serious answer. It observes that the question is unanswerable.

"Why?" questions can only be answered by someone who has complete knowledge of the context of the question; the whole context. If you have that, the answer is obvious, and flows directly from that understanding. If you don't have it, then your "why?" question cannot be answered (by you).

That said, it may still be worth asking these questions. Although there can be no conclusive answer, the journey of speculation involved in trying to answer the question can often prove valuable or useful, or offer interesting and useful insights...

HTH

[Sculptor1]

It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?

The answer is probably because "god" is not omni-anything since that would not be consistent with the world as it is observed.
If the claim is that god is omni-potent-scient-present-benevolent then reality would have to be all good, and knowingly so. Since bed stuff happens then god has to forgo at least some of these characteristics.

It's all just incoherent fantasy made up by desperate people.

[Ecurb]

The answer is probably because "god" is not omni-anything since that would not be consistent with the world as it is observed.
If the claim is that god is omni-potent-scient-present-benevolent then reality would have to be all good, and knowingly so. Since bed stuff happens then god has to forgo at least some of these characteristics.

It's all just incoherent fantasy made up by desperate people.

The omni-ness of God can best be understood as hyperbole. Odin is often labelled "Odin the all-seeing". But we know he relies on those two ravens to bring him the news.

Nonetheless, the notion that omni-ness is incompatable with bad things happening is, I think, incorrect. Perhaps the perfect world is one in which adventure, and courage, and fortitude are possible. Is "virtue" possible in an "omnibenevolent" world? I think not. Is the value of virtue worth a seemingly imperfect world. Perhaps.

Who can know the mind of God? Sculptor (and others) think they can know that a world without pain and death is a perfect world. But is it? The Greeks thought the Gods, being immortal, could not be heroic. Perhaps heroism is worthy of something-- and it is impossible without the potential for bad things. A perfect love (agape?) is one in which all people are loved equally. But that's not very romantic. Romance requires danger, and prejudices, and imperfection. If we value romance, then danger and so-called "imperfection", may not be so imperfect, after all.

[GE Morton]

It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?

All of the infinite attributes ascribed to God lead to paradoxes. Any description of a "being" with those attributes is incoherent.

[Sculptor1]

The answer is probably because "god" is not omni-anything since that would not be consistent with the world as it is observed.
If the claim is that god is omni-potent-scient-present-benevolent then reality would have to be all good, and knowingly so. Since bed stuff happens then god has to forgo at least some of these characteristics.

It's all just incoherent fantasy made up by desperate people.

The omni-ness of God can best be understood as hyperbole. Odin is often labelled "Odin the all-seeing". But we know he relies on those two ravens to bring him the news.

Nonetheless, the notion that omni-ness is incompatable with bad things happening is, I think, incorrect. Perhaps the perfect world is one in which adventure, and courage, and fortitude are possible. Is "virtue" possible in an "omnibenevolent" world? I think not. Is the value of virtue worth a seemingly imperfect world. Perhaps.

If you are omni belevolent and omni present then there is simply no room for anything that is not benevolent. Evil cannot exist. QED either god is not omnibenevolent or not omnipresent.

Who can know the mind of God? Sculptor (and others) think they can know that a world without pain and death is a perfect world. But is it? The Greeks thought the Gods, being immortal, could not be heroic. Perhaps heroism is worthy of something-- and it is impossible without the potential for bad things. A perfect love (agape?) is one in which all people are loved equally. But that's not very romantic. Romance requires danger, and prejudices, and imperfection. If we value romance, then danger and so-called "imperfection", may not be so imperfect, after all.

I do not claim to know the mind of god- I leave that to the theists who waste no time to tell me.

[Ecurb]

Nonetheless, the notion that omni-ness is incompatable with bad things happening is, I think, incorrect. Perhaps the perfect world is one in which adventure, and courage, and fortitude are possible. Is "virtue" possible in an "omnibenevolent" world? I think not. Is the value of virtue worth a seemingly imperfect world. Perhaps.

If you are omni belevolent and omni present then there is simply no room for anything that is not benevolent. Evil cannot exist. QED either god is not omnibenevolent or not omnipresent.

That's where I disagree, Perhaps the possibility of pain, or evil, is necessary for the existance of "virtue" (indeed. I think it is) and perhaps "virtue" (or courage, or fortitude) is "better" than mamby-pamby "perfection". I don't claim to know the answers, but neither do you.

You're a Tolkien fan -- didn't you ever read Eddison's "The Worm Ouroboros""?

[Sculptor1]

Nonetheless, the notion that omni-ness is incompatable with bad things happening is, I think, incorrect. Perhaps the perfect world is one in which adventure, and courage, and fortitude are possible. Is "virtue" possible in an "omnibenevolent" world? I think not. Is the value of virtue worth a seemingly imperfect world. Perhaps.

If you are omni belevolent and omni present then there is simply no room for anything that is not benevolent. Evil cannot exist. QED either god is not omnibenevolent or not omnipresent.

That's where I disagree, Perhaps the possibility of pain, or evil, is necessary for the existance of "virtue" (indeed. I think it is) and perhaps "virtue" (or courage, or fortitude) is "better" than mamby-pamby "perfection". I don't claim to know the answers, but neither do you.

You're a Tolkien fan -- didn't you ever read Eddison's "The Worm Ouroboros""?

I was not presenting anything to disagree with.
It's basic logic.
If everything is good then there is no room for evil. That is not up for question.
If god is everything then he is not all good if there exists such a thing as evil. If you glass is full of milk then I cannot have and dead fish in it.

I am a Tolkien fan and Yes I did read the Worm Ouroboros. That would have been 40 years ago.
I found it heavy going as I remember.

[Ecurb]

I was not presenting anything to disagree with.
It's basic logic.
If everything is good then there is no room for evil. That is not up for question.
If god is everything then he is not all good if there exists such a thing as evil. If you glass is full of milk then I cannot have and dead fish in it.

I am a Tolkien fan and Yes I did read the Worm Ouroboros. That would have been 40 years ago.
I found it heavy going as I remember.

I disagree. If certain forms of "good" are impossible without evil (as is surely the case), then it may be that evil is essential for those forms of "good". If, as you are contending, an omni-God cannot do two contradictory things, He may not be able to produce the ultimate good without the potential for "bad". Winning a game wouldn't be much fun were it not for the potential of losing. Are you suggesting that in an ideal world games would have all winners and no losers? What's the fun of that?

The "Worm Ouroboros" is a great novel, I think.

[Sculptor1]

I was not presenting anything to disagree with.
It's basic logic.
If everything is good then there is no room for evil. That is not up for question.
If god is everything then he is not all good if there exists such a thing as evil. If you glass is full of milk then I cannot have and dead fish in it.

I am a Tolkien fan and Yes I did read the Worm Ouroboros. That would have been 40 years ago.
I found it heavy going as I remember.

I disagree. If certain forms of "good" are impossible without evil (as is surely the case), then it may be that evil is essential for those forms of "good".

That's all very well. Good and evil are Two sides of the same coin that is fine. But you cannot then say that god is omnibenevolent.

If, as you are contending, an omni-God cannot do two contradictory things, He may not be able to produce the ultimate good without the potential for "bad".

SO you are saying god can make a round square. They you might as well go to cloud cookoo land,And the conversation ends here

and Winning a game wouldn't be much fun were it not for the potential of losing. Are you suggesting that in an ideal world games would have all winners and no losers? What's the fun of that?

The "Worm Ouroboros" is a great novel, I think.

I just got the kindle version and will take a nother look soon

[Ecurb]

If, as you are contending, an omni-God cannot do two contradictory things, He may not be able to produce the ultimate good without the potential for "bad".

SO you are saying god can make a round square. They you might as well go to cloud cookoo land,And the conversation ends here

and Winning a game wouldn't be much fun were it not for the potential of losing. Are you suggesting that in an ideal world games would have all winners and no losers? What's the fun of that?

The "Worm Ouroboros" is a great novel, I think.

I just got the kindle version and will take a nother look soon

I'm saying exactly the opposite. Since God cannot make a round square, He may not be able to make a perfect world without evil (and other bad things). Just like a round square is impossible, such virtues as courage and fortitude are impossible without the existance of suffering. If God values such virtues, he must create a world in which suffering exists.

"The Worm Ouroboros" has an awkward, old fashioned start, and is written in archaic English (which I like). After the beginning, though, it's a great fantasy novel.

[Sculptor1]

If, as you are contending, an omni-God cannot do two contradictory things, He may not be able to produce the ultimate good without the potential for "bad".

SO you are saying god can make a round square. They you might as well go to cloud cookoo land,And the conversation ends here

and Winning a game wouldn't be much fun were it not for the potential of losing. Are you suggesting that in an ideal world games would have all winners and no losers? What's the fun of that?

The "Worm Ouroboros" is a great novel, I think.

I just got the kindle version and will take a nother look soon

I'm saying exactly the opposite. Since God cannot make a round square, He may not be able to make a perfect world without evil (and other bad things). Just like a round square is impossible, such virtues as courage and fortitude are impossible without the existance of suffering. If God values such virtues, he must create a world in which suffering exists.

I think this part of the discussion is dead. an omnipresent god who is omnibenevolent is meaningless in a world where there is evil. What the hell do you think OMNIPRESENT means FFS? It means that everything that is, IS GOD. And if god is omnibenevolent then there is no room for evil. THere is no room for a dead fish in a glass full of milk
You are insisting on a round square.

"The Worm Ouroboros" has an awkward, old fashioned start, and is written in archaic English (which I like). After the beginning, though, it's a great fantasy novel.