Divnity of Doubt: The God Question

[Embar Angylwrath]

That's just it Dd... according to the Bible, there is no such thing as free will. There are citations that, in fact, imply that god directs the wills of men. Free will is a philosophical construct interjected into the concept of the Christian religion much later.

As to evil... if a god is all-good and all powerful, how can an all good and all powerful god create evil, something that by its own definitiion is against the nature of such a god. His argument, which make a lot of sense, is that god can be all good, and and he can be all powerful, but he can't be both.

Lets look at some of the old testament as an example. God sent an angel of death to kill the first born in every household that didn't bear a certain mark. Which is a real bitch because god rigged the game.

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."

Here we have a god personally intervening so he could show off his powers, which eventually included killing a lot of first born egyptians. That doesn't sound like an all good god to me. Maybe all powerful, but not all good.

[Kulaf]

Not really. Because if that was the case, then why did God wait until then to release the slaves? Why not just make Pharoah do it? The answer is one of timing and omniscience:

13 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up[a] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

God waited until the time was right and that everything would fall into place and then took action which does not violate free will.

[Ddrak]

That's just it Dd... according to the Bible, there is no such thing as free will. There are citations that, in fact, imply that god directs the wills of men. Free will is a philosophical construct interjected into the concept of the Christian religion much later.

I disagree - free will has been at the core of Judeo-Christian religion from the beginning. Why else would God have given man the choice in Eden? Why all the choices throughout the Old Testament? Why the fundamental choices in the New Testament where man can choose salvation or reject it?

Without free will, Judeo-christianity falls to pieces and the Bible is very strong on choice throughout, but, I agree it is also strong on God's omniscience and omnipotence to influence men.

As to evil... if a god is all-good and all powerful, how can an all good and all powerful god create evil, something that by its own definitiion is against the nature of such a god. His argument, which make a lot of sense, is that god can be all good, and and he can be all powerful, but he can't be both.

Evil was created of free will, not directly of God. How can you give free will without having the option to refuse God and do something else?

That doesn't sound like an all good god to me. Maybe all powerful, but not all good.

It depends on your definition of "good" and "evil" really, doesn't it, and how accurately you think the Bible really records what God said to Moses (after all, I think we all agree it's a human interpretation of history and not a divine one even if it may be divinely inspired).

Dd

[Garrdor]

You are algae from under a rock - and you owe your existence to the god of chemistry and more importantly electrically-released amino acids.

Or, LORD AND SAVIOR JAYSUS DID IT!

[Kulaf]

Why does one preclude the other?

[Freecare Spiritwise]

You are algae from under a rock

That's "Mister Algae" to you, pal.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You can't prove the world will be around next week but everyone still goes to work.

Reasonable expectation based on historical consistency =/= faith.

if the existence of something (i.e. God) couldn't be disproven then it must exist and we're just not smart enough to perceive it.

That's...complete nonsense. You can't disprove the existence of leprechauns and unicorns either, but a reasonable person will conclude that they don't exist based on absence of evidence.

Omnipotent entities are logically impossible, plain and simple. Can God commit suicide? If yes, it's not omnipotent. If no, it's not omnipotent.

Sorry for the VERY late response on this.. but your logic is the same as those that couldn't grasp gravity, or the fact that the earth orbited the moon. Reasonable people concluded many false things in the past...

[Freecare Spiritwise]

A couple questioins I've been pondering that probably relate to this thread:

1. What would happen if we prove the existence of God conclusively, but yet that proof brings us no closer to understanding?

Nobody seems to think this could happen, but science is tricksy. It often gives us misleading or incomplete answers. And science does not care if we like the results it gives us. I could totally see proof of God without corresponding proof of some dogma as a divisive force in the world. It would probably galvanize the fanatics. Everyone would suddently be spiritual but there would be even more violence and bloodshed in the name of this higher power as everyone scrambled to digest and interpret their new dogmas.

2. What would happen if reincarnation were proven to be a natural phenomenon? Like evolution on a more profound scale than we previously imagined?

Proof of a soul without corresponding proof of a higher power would certainly be interesting! Would it be like that Twilight Zone episode where everyone who doesn't like their station in this current life just offs themself and re-rolls the dice again? Would people be at peace knowing that whatever strife and suffering they've been through are basically a vivid illusion?

...just a couple of thoughts on a relaxing Friday

[Embar Angylwrath]

Just relating to Number 1... I don't see how proving the existance of god could be accomplished without some greater understanding of what we have today. If we can prove existance, doesn't that require a greater understanding of the subject?

[Freecare Spiritwise]

We might have enough understanding to prove that a supreme being exists but we might still fall short of the understanding of the nature of that being. It would certainly be our luck.I was thinking along the lines of Hitchiker's Guide, where the computer gives the ultimate answer to the life, the universe and everything (42), but we never gave it the question. We finally have the answer but it doesn't help us. So that's what I was getting at. How valuable the question of whether a supreme being exists is, and what would just a "yes" answer mean.

And of course later in the series you find out that God does indeed exist, but his only message to his creation is "sorry for the inconvenience."

[Ddrak]

You could "prove" the existence of a supreme being by demonstrating a step change in the energy of the universe, or something similar to that. There's still a lot unknown about the first microsecond after the big bang, but personally I'm not holding out for any great religious discoveries there.

Dd

[Garrdor]

There's way too much time, money, brainpower wasted on the pursuit of the ethereal. Humanity only sets itself back every time someone bides their time hoping eternity is on the other end. Put down the bible. A disposable cell-phone means more right now for the future of humanity than every page of every religious script ever written. Sorry.

God is just a series of buildings and books. Oh, and table-conversation for old people/3rd world peoples.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You could "prove" the existence of a supreme being by demonstrating a step change in the energy of the universe, or something similar to that. There's still a lot unknown about the first microsecond after the big bang, but personally I'm not holding out for any great religious discoveries there.

Dd

Or you could just change the equations that explained the step change (as we typically do when physics equations don't pan out like we thought they would)

[MeGusta]

It is all quite simply put by this quote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

~Attributed to Epicurus (Possibly erroneously)

[Kulaf]

Or perhaps God believes that humanity should rise above evil on their own.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Or perhaps God believes that humanity should rise above evil on their own.

Then he qualifies as a deadbeat father.

[MeGusta]

Then that would qualify as malevolent, Kulaf.

The quotation really is all encompassing.

[Ddrak]

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

This statement is false. God values free will over evil, and to remove evil would necessarily remove the freedom to be evil, thus the non-removal of evil isn't malevolent but protecting of freedom.

Is the government similarly malevolent for allowing people to be evil?

Dd

[MeGusta]

If I believed in God I would agree with John Calvin in that free will does not exist. So therefore your argument, being predicated on free will, is invalid.

[Payne]

I haven't read that book. I read a psalm from the Bible every morning and a passage with my ODB (Our Daily Bread) at night.