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

[Sy Borg]

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.

Most of the desperation was the Israelites competing with the detested Canaanites. The Canaanites had a strong main deity, Ba'al, so the Israelites kept adding more superpowers to Yahweh until they could say, 'Nyah nyah. My deity is stronger than your deity!'.

Not miles from seeing who might win between Captain marvel and Molecule Man.

Yeah, something like that.
Sort of - my dad's a fireman! No my dad's a Policeman. yeah by mine is a detective. My dad's now a soldier.
Ner nicky ner ner!!

Yes, your description is closer to the theists of the time. In their patriarchal societies, fathers carried a ton of responsibility and faced many dangers. Worried children can go their parents for help, but who did the fathers of the time have for support? They basically imagined a father of fathers, who would help them face what would have been a difficult life. No doubt it gave them courage and more optimism.

Today's theists see God more as a superhero in this world so deeply troubled by a sensationalist media parasiting every bad news story they can find globally. They see the modern world as such a disaster, and our authorities so dominantly powerful, that it takes a superhero God to trump these "dark Satanic mills". A deity who can do absolutely anything, knows absolutely everything, lives forever being beyond and above space and time, endlessly cares for everyone but has "mysterious ways" which prevents him from helping people in need (aside from certain privileged professional sportspeople and politicians).

Ultimately, all this belief when our creators - the Sun and Earth - are right there before our eyes at all times, says that people struggle with life and need help. They end up clutching at whatever is offered, and sometimes it works out, sometimes not.

[GE Morton]

On omnibenevolence and other creatures’ interests I think you have me there: this can maybe be answered with omnipotence because an omnipotent being could simply remove the need for wolves to eat rabbits . . .

We could presume he could, but since he didn't, he cannot now be described as "omnibenevolent."

But then one of the caveats of my original point was that there can only be one, so all the created beings wouldn’t be omnipotent. What if “omnibenevolence” were just changed to something like never-malevolence?

Malevolence, like benevolence, is idiosyncratic and relative, to each person's interests. One could only be omni-non-malevolent if each persons interests were identical.

The omniscience thing seems answerable too: is it conceivable that the omnipotent being could make the environment such that Alfie and Bruno’s interests don’t meaningfully clash?

Well, that's another hypothetical, but sure --- unless "omnipotence" has its own logical problems --- which it does.

The classical "paradox of omnipotence" is, "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't pick it up?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

That challenge, however, like the immovable object/irresistable force "paradox," has a contradiction built into it, so is not a valid objection to the omnipotence hypothesis (a proper formulation of the "rock" challenge would be, "Can God make a rock of mass M, for any value of M"? And, "Can God lift a rock of mass M, for any value of M"?). There is no logical reason why both couldn't be answered affirmatively.

But how about, "Can God destroy himself?" If not, then he is not omnipotent. If he can, then he is not invincible. So then we ask, "Can God conceive a being powerful enough to destroy him?" If not, then he is not omnipotent. If he can, then he would be powerless to resist this being, and hence not omnipotent.

More on the problems of omnipotence here:

https://iep.utm.edu/omnipote/

[Sy Borg]

On omnibenevolence and other creatures’ interests I think you have me there: this can maybe be answered with omnipotence because an omnipotent being could simply remove the need for wolves to eat rabbits . . .

We could presume he could, but since he didn't, he cannot now be described as "omnibenevolent."

The problem of evil is easily dealt with via "God works in a mysterious way", the Swiss Army knife of Christian apologetics. Still there are alternatives:

1. God might be still evolving and is yet to get his/her/its/hir/ze act together.

2. Some kind of god/s or godlike beings may be a far distant potential of universes, and we happen to live in the universe's chaotic pre-deity phase.

3. God may be benevolent simply in that it doesn't wish harm to us, but it doesn't actually care. The situation may be like humans and ants. If ants are not being invasive, most people don't wish them harm, and will avoid stepping on them (if convenient haha). I sometimes leave out my breadboard for them to finish the fine cleaning work. So we feel benevolently towards them (if they don't sin!) but we ultimately don't care if, say, one ant kills another*.



* Unless the killing is shown in close-up on YouTube, in which case much heartbreak will follow :)

[Ecurb]

On omnibenevolence and other creatures’ interests I think you have me there: this can maybe be answered with omnipotence because an omnipotent being could simply remove the need for wolves to eat rabbits . . .

We could presume he could, but since he didn't, he cannot now be described as "omnibenevolent."

The problem of evil is easily dealt with via "God works in a mysterious way", the Swiss Army knife of Christian apologetics. Still there are alternatives:

1. God might be still evolving and is yet to get his/her/its/hir/ze act together.

2. Some kind of god/s or godlike beings may be a far distant potential of universes, and we happen to live in the universe's chaotic pre-deity phase.

3. God may be benevolent simply in that it doesn't wish harm to us, but it doesn't actually care. The situation may be like humans and ants. If ants are not being invasive, most people don't wish them harm, and will avoid stepping on them (if convenient haha). I sometimes leave out my breadboard for them to finish the fine cleaning work. So we feel benevolently towards them (if they don't sin!) but we ultimately don't care if, say, one ant kills another*.



* Unless the killing is shown in close-up on YouTube, in which case much heartbreak will follow

In addition, what may seem evil to us may not seem evil to God. For example, death seems horrid to us humans. It may be a benevolent solutioon to the woes of living, as far as a Christian God is concerned. Complaints about God massacring all those first born Egyptians might vanish if we knew what after life was in store for them.

[Good_Egg]

This stems from a conversation elsewhere about the Fall. I asked, will people sin in heaven?

I was told no, people will be “made perfect,” and so forever choose not to sin.

I asked, well, why not make people that way to begin with since it’s already decided by that particular arguer to be possible?

They said, well, they were! Adam and Eve were made perfectly, they explained. They didn’t want to sin perfectly.

So how/why did they, I asked?

Because they were deceived, I was told.

But that just brings up more questions. Why would God make them able to be deceived, and isn’t God culpable for that (why do they take any blame at all if it’s already decided they were sinless?)

I've been arguing with Leontiskos on a different thread, and came to the conclusion that my understanding of sin is less rigorous than it might be.

Sometimes "sin" means something like "to fall short" (of perfection). We humans do this quite a lot.

But think about it - why do we fall short ?

Sometimes we get things wrong because we don't know enough, or can't cope. We have imperfect information. We have limited processing power. We try in good faith, doing what seems best at the time, and still get it wrong.
We cannot choose not to fall short in this way. Such failings are not moral failings. We're sorry when we find out the mistake we've made, but it's an honest mistake.

And then sometimes we do bad things to other people with the intent of punishing them. Or for the sake of what seems to be a greater good. We're sorry that it's painful for them, but think we're justified.

Or we do things because it feels good in the short term (and who knows if the long term will ever arrive ?)

So on one interpretation being sinless here on earth seems to require superhuman capabilities, such as complete foreknowledge.

But if you use "sin" to mean only choosing evil in full knowledge that it is evil, then that seems pretty rare. Don't most of us manage to avoid that most of the time ?

[Sy Borg]

On omnibenevolence and other creatures’ interests I think you have me there: this can maybe be answered with omnipotence because an omnipotent being could simply remove the need for wolves to eat rabbits . . .

We could presume he could, but since he didn't, he cannot now be described as "omnibenevolent."

The problem of evil is easily dealt with via "God works in a mysterious way", the Swiss Army knife of Christian apologetics. Still there are alternatives:

1. God might be still evolving and is yet to get his/her/its/hir/ze act together.

2. Some kind of god/s or godlike beings may be a far distant potential of universes, and we happen to live in the universe's chaotic pre-deity phase.

3. God may be benevolent simply in that it doesn't wish harm to us, but it doesn't actually care. The situation may be like humans and ants. If ants are not being invasive, most people don't wish them harm, and will avoid stepping on them (if convenient haha). I sometimes leave out my breadboard for them to finish the fine cleaning work. So we feel benevolently towards them (if they don't sin!) but we ultimately don't care if, say, one ant kills another*.



* Unless the killing is shown in close-up on YouTube, in which case much heartbreak will follow :)

In addition, what may seem evil to us may not seem evil to God. For example, death seems horrid to us humans. It may be a benevolent solution to the woes of living, as far as a Christian God is concerned. Complaints about God massacring all those first born Egyptians might vanish if we knew what after life was in store for them.

I agree. That's #4, which would seem to be a cousin to #3. Death may hurt, but gods, like honey badgers, don't care. Or God sees life's pains as akin to the intense hunger when you're out on the road that can make even a Macca's burger taste good. You're not going to like the burger unless you have suffered with great hunger beforehand.

[Ecurb]

In addition, what may seem evil to us may not seem evil to God. For example, death seems horrid to us humans. It may be a benevolent solution to the woes of living, as far as a Christian God is concerned. Complaints about God massacring all those first born Egyptians might vanish if we knew what after life was in store for them.

I agree. That's #4, which would seem to be a cousin to #3. Death may hurt, but gods, like honey badgers, don't care. Or God sees life's pains as akin to the intense hunger when you're out on the road that can make even a Macca's burger taste good. You're not going to like the burger unless you have suffered with great hunger beforehand.

Your hunger analagy made me think of the comments I made earlier in this thread. Just as courage, heroism, fortitude (and some other virtues) are not possible without danger, perhaps food wouldn't taste as good without hunger. If God had eliminated suffering by eliminating hunger, He would also eliminate the pleasure of the feast.

For those who think a benevolent God would necessarily eliminate pain and suffering, I wonder about mountaineers. Pain, danger and suffering are endemic to the sport, yet I (and others) love it. Why? Maybe pain and suffering are essential aspects of certain pleasures, as God is doubtless well aware.

[value]

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.

"If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist."

How can that what 'created' (fundamentally underlays) Being be a Being?

I've asked this question several times but you did not answer and your current topic is again based on the idea. Could you please answer the question?

What preceded Being fundamentally cannot be of a nature that is Good.

The idea that the origin of existence is Good - similar to the idea that God is a being - gives rise to the false idea that Good can (or should) be owned or applied to prevent evil. It would make it appear that Good is a given - the idea that the destiny of humanity is predetermined - while in reality the perceived Good is wholly contained in the responsibility of the beholder on behalf of a concept that can be described as 'pure meaning'.

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 noticed a philosopher on this forum once mentioning that suffering is impossible.

I'm saying the world without redemption is impossible. What is redemption in the philosophical/religious sense about?
...
I see the the accused witch on the stake screaming in agony and I know there is the presence here of something not contained within the sight observed, which is where the scientist acquires her content.
...
I say ethics is like this. The flames that lick the soles of the feet of the condemned witch, this must be redeemed just as events must have causes. The need for redemption is built into the the suffering itself; it is part of the analysis of suffering. Simply put, there is no way the girls suffering stands alone in eternity. Suffering as it is so deemed is impossible, just as a causeless event is impossible.

There is a lot to say about this, but, as usual, it depends on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. I learned my thinking and interpreting from others.
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 00#p337700

Good is a manifestation in retro-perspective that originates from intellect (reason). The origin of intellect and reason isn't Good but of a nature that isn't a 'something' (Being) while it isn't nothing (meaningfully irrelevant) either. What's left is the concept 'pure meaning' and meaningful relevance for the world.

Part of my argument came from a debate about the Fall. Someone said Adam and Eve were created perfectly and without the desire to do sin. This came from a question about whether people will sin in heaven, and they said no, because people will be “made perfect” and perfectly choose never to sin.

So I asked, well then how did Adam and Eve sin?

I was told, because they were deceived.

I asked, well, then how is that their fault or anyone else’s fault other than God’s and the deceiver’s? Is God not culpable for making those circumstances possible (and, per omniscience, *knowing* it?)

If Good is a free choice from a responsible being then the responsibility must lay with the chooser. Perceived evil (e.g. deceivers) should not be considered a guiding factor. Evil should be shunned not for Evilness but for Good.

If God fundamentally underlays Being it is impossible that God would have beforehand knowledge of that which is 'to be manifested' (created). While in a sense the whole cosmos and all time can be considered within the scope of God (the origin of existence/Being), this is merely in such a way that all time is to be seen as 'actual already' bound to the scope meaningful relevance at all times while time in experience is part of a cosmic creation process of which both past and future are a part.

Quantum retrocausality provides a clue that the future indeed is a part (the same process) of the current 'manifested moment' within the scope meaningful relevance.

This means a person could actually make a choice that causes their past - or so to speak 'change causality of the past'. This means that causality is not true in time.
https://medium.com/the-infinite-univers ... ed9530509c

Space/time in retro-perspective and time in experience are two different concepts.

[Sy Borg]

In addition, what may seem evil to us may not seem evil to God. For example, death seems horrid to us humans. It may be a benevolent solution to the woes of living, as far as a Christian God is concerned. Complaints about God massacring all those first born Egyptians might vanish if we knew what after life was in store for them.

I agree. That's #4, which would seem to be a cousin to #3. Death may hurt, but gods, like honey badgers, don't care. Or God sees life's pains as akin to the intense hunger when you're out on the road that can make even a Macca's burger taste good. You're not going to like the burger unless you have suffered with great hunger beforehand.

Your hunger analagy made me think of the comments I made earlier in this thread. Just as courage, heroism, fortitude (and some other virtues) are not possible without danger, perhaps food wouldn't taste as good without hunger. If God had eliminated suffering by eliminating hunger, He would also eliminate the pleasure of the feast.

For those who think a benevolent God would necessarily eliminate pain and suffering, I wonder about mountaineers. Pain, danger and suffering are endemic to the sport, yet I (and others) love it. Why? Maybe pain and suffering are essential aspects of certain pleasures, as God is doubtless well aware.

They say that hunger makes the best sauce.

All things considered, with all due respect to mountaineers' desire for pain, I would prefer a world with a LOT less of it, both for us humans and for other species, who so often get the rough end of the pineapple.

Or more simply, I would sooner trade the highs if it attenuates the lows. In fact, that is exactly what stoicism are about, teaching people to embrace calm and stability, which is no doubt why it's my favourite philosophical system.

[Ecurb]

They say that hunger makes the best sauce.

All things considered, with all due respect to mountaineers' desire for pain, I would prefer a world with a LOT less of it, both for us humans and for other species, who so often get the rough end of the pineapple.

Or more simply, I would sooner trade the highs if it attenuates the lows. In fact, that is exactly what stoicism are about, teaching people to embrace calm and stability, which is no doubt why it's my favourite philosophical system.

To each his or her own. I'm more of a romantic. Romance involves adventure, which involves danger. Falling in love inevitablty leads to heartbreak (unless the lovers die at the exact same time). But the joy trumps the sorrow (in my opinion). Same with the romance of adventures --- like mountaineering. There will be plenty of time for calm and stability in the grave.

[GE Morton]

How can that what 'created' (fundamentally underlays) Being be a Being?

Assuming that "being" was "created" begs the question.

[Sy Borg]

They say that hunger makes the best sauce.

All things considered, with all due respect to mountaineers' desire for pain, I would prefer a world with a LOT less of it, both for us humans and for other species, who so often get the rough end of the pineapple.

Or more simply, I would sooner trade the highs if it attenuates the lows. In fact, that is exactly what stoicism are about, teaching people to embrace calm and stability, which is no doubt why it's my favourite philosophical system.

To each his or her own. I'm more of a romantic. Romance involves adventure, which involves danger. Falling in love inevitablty leads to heartbreak (unless the lovers die at the exact same time). But the joy trumps the sorrow (in my opinion). Same with the romance of adventures --- like mountaineering. There will be plenty of time for calm and stability in the grave.

I thought like that a few decades ago. I have had my fill of intensity.

[value]

3. God may be benevolent simply in that it doesn't wish harm to us, but it doesn't actually care.

If God (origin of existence) would run in front of Being as a puppeteer that would require God to be a Being himself which would be absurd. In order to 'care for' would imply that God would have a position in front of Being. A Being can serve God (i.e. 'purpose of life') and in such a way achieve what can be considered care for its existence: grace.

[value]

How can that what 'created' (fundamentally underlays) Being be a Being?

Assuming that "being" was "created" begs the question.

I used the term 'created' merely to follow the line of reasoning of the OP ('It is logically impossible for God to have created people') and added ('fundamentally underlays').

The origin or 'why' question of Being is applicable (it is the source of the whole OP) or do you intend to argue that humans shouldn't ask that question and that the idea of God (philosophical origin of existence) is an illusion because the 'why' question shouldn't be asked?

[Good_Egg]

To each his or her own. I'm more of a romantic. Romance involves adventure, which involves danger. Falling in love inevitablty leads to heartbreak (unless the lovers die at the exact same time). But the joy trumps the sorrow (in my opinion). Same with the romance of adventures --- like mountaineering. There will be plenty of time for calm and stability in the grave.

Such a philosophy is fine. Unless you think the rest of the world should pay for the doctor to tend your broken leg when you fall off the mountain...

Or outlaw public kissing when you think there's a faint chance one party has an infectious disease...

You be romantic at your risk and let others be romantic at their risk, and we'll get along fine.

Is God romantic ? Risking all for the possibility of a loving relationship between creature and creator ? Or does what He is risking amount to other people's pain ?