God cannot be all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing

[otseng]

It's getting kinda quiet from all the atheists, so I'm going to help it along.

Here's one argument I've heard from atheists on why God doesn't exist.

Christians acknowledge that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. But there exists many problems in the world today. And many quite serious problems. If God is all-knowing and sees all these problems and all-loving and doesn't want these problems to exist, then it's not all-powerful since it allows the problems to exist.

Or if it knows all these problems and is all-powerful, then it is not all-loving since the problems exist.

Therefore God cannot be all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing. Consequently, God cannot exist.

[adherent]

God WILL destroy evil and Satan as it states in Revelations. We all will abide our time till that awesome day arrives. And CanadianBuddhist you say you don't believe in God, but i thought you were buddhist and taht means you believe in Buddha doesn't it? enlighten me on the subject, is Buddha god or is he considered the prophet of Buddhism?

And how much more the joy for something you created to praise you with its heart, than a rock to drone forth dead-pan chants of praise.

[Corvus]

God WILL destroy evil and Satan as it states in Revelations. We all will abide our time till that awesome day arrives. And CanadianBuddhist you say you don't believe in God, but i thought you were buddhist and taht means you believe in Buddha doesn't it? enlighten me on the subject, is Buddha god or is he considered the prophet of Buddhism?

Well, sort of like a prophet. Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, similar to the old stoicism. Basically, it states that the material world is the source of all suffering, so in order not to suffer, one has to renounce the physical world. The simplest way I can put is, if you're a Christian, you believe the physical world is filled with temptations. Buddhism is an extreme reaction to that.

Yes, it's true, coveting things in the physical world is the source of the greatest harm. But Buddhism forgets, or doesn't care, that it's also a source of the greatest desires.

And how much more the joy for something you created to praise you with its heart, than a rock to drone forth dead-pan chants of praise.

Well, since those praises are wrung through coercion - where free will isn't entirely free because of the implications of not following God and burning in hell - I wouldn't call it very joyful.

[adherent]

Well I think that if someone would give me the choice of eternal happiness or eternal pain and suffering, I would most definitely thank the person (joyfully).

[Shild]

In considering the origin of good an evil, one must first decide exactly why the good things we observe are good and the evil things evil.

The going assumption here seems to be that God was sitting around before Creation and arbitrarily said, "Okay, I guess X will be evil and Y will be good." In other words, God's commands are good and anything which contradicts them is evil.

However, it is my position that good and evil go beyond that. You see, according to the Bible, God is incapable of sin. This means that God has a nature, and that He cannot go against it.

Therefore, evil is defined as that which is not in keeping with God's nature. Good is that which coincides with God's nature. God's commandments are descriptions of ways in which human nature can most closely mirror the Divine Nature.

I am not saying that God does not sin because He chooses not to, or because there is some rule which God cannot break. The reason is because sin is defined by its Godlessness.

Suppose there is a dark corner in a room. If you shine a light in the area, it is no longer dark. The light cannot be dark because darkness is by definition the lack of light.

The result of this is that there is no "Origin of Good and Evil." Rather, these are both timeless concepts whose existence depends on God, not on humanity.

Quote:
Wouldn't it also imply the true origin of both good and evil is God?


The concept of light requires a theoretical concept of darkness. The concept of matter requires a theoretical concept of vacuum. The concept of God requires a theoretical concept of evil.

If you have a light source in a box, then there is no darkness in the box. Through some other stuff in there, and shadows are cast. Darkness now exists in the box. Did the light cause the darkness? No, the concept of light caused the theoretical concept of darkness, and the presence of other items in the box caused the presence of darkness.

My assertion: God's existence required the theoretical concept of Godlessness (evil), and the presence of free will in the universe resulted in the actual possibility of evil.

In a sense, God did cause evil, but God is not responsible for the presence of evil. In other words, neither the presence of evil, nor the evil actions of some people, can reasonably called God's fault.

Following this line of reasoning, from my post in the "The Origin of Good and Evil" thread, God can indeed eliminate evil in our world, but not without eliminating free will. Also, God can never eliminate the theoretical concept of evil, not even by making Himself cease to exist. The only way to eliminate the concept of evil would be to eliminate the concept of God.

Now the claim that an "all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving" God cannot exist rests on the assumption that "all-loving" means never allowing evil. However, the only way to eliminate evil in this universe is to eliminate free will.

If God were to hardwire humans to believe in Him, there would be no free will. Furthermore, if He somehow made His existence so obvious that no one could reasonably deny it (i.e. as obvious as the fact that the sun exists), there would be no free will.

The Bible sometimes refers to humanity as the wife of God. If we had no free will, we would be the whores of God, and the only way to have free will is to allow evil in the universe.

[Corvus]

The Bible sometimes refers to humanity as the wife of God. If we had no free will, we would be the whores of God, and the only way to have free will is to allow evil in the universe.

Not having free will may be terrifying, but it's nothing to God. I must contest this sentence though. I believe it to be the other way around. A prostitute has free will and is a far more apt metaphor for our current belief. We worship God for our reasons, not for God's, and we are sandwiched between the two extremes of good and evil, blessing and curse, just as the prostitute can either live through her occupation or perish in poverty.

A bride once had no say in the marriage. A bride also, according to the definition in the bible, cannot be divorced. The prostitute operates through conditional love, as we do - her deeds are contingent on the customer being able to meet her price. The bride of God, without freewill, could only be capable of the purest example of unconditional love.

[Shild]

I must contest this sentence though. I believe it to be the other way around. A prostitute has free will and is a far more apt metaphor for our current belief. We worship God for our reasons, not for God's, and we are sandwiched between the two extremes of good and evil, blessing and curse, just as the prostitute can either live through her occupation or perish in poverty.

To get into this would involve delving into the complex world of ancient near east marital practices, so suffice it to say that my metaphor was flawed and you are right to contest it.

Allow me to get to my real point: to truly love another entity involves choice. An entity without free will cannot make a choice, and so is incapable of love.

If I have a dummy and make it say "I love you" to me, it is not really a sincere expression of love. It is just me saying I love myself. However, if I know a person for years and this person and I develope a close relationship and this person says to me, "I love you," then the statement has value.

[Corvus]

If I have a dummy and make it say "I love you" to me, it is not really a sincere expression of love. It is just me saying I love myself. However, if I know a person for years and this person and I develope a close relationship and this person says to me, "I love you," then the statement has value.

What if you created a person and only associated with them if they loved you? That may be sincere, but it's also sincerely conceited.

It's likely that the reason they have a close relationship with you is due to a set of conditions that have more to do with their own personality than with yours.

[otseng]

What if you created a person and only associated with them if they loved you?

It's not that God does not want to associate with people. On the contrary, God desires and longs for an association with all his people, whether they love God or not.

The only reason that God cannot associate with people is because of sin. Prior to Adam sinning, there was a close association with God and his people (though there were only 2 people). And theoretically, if Adam never sinned and none of his descendents sinned, everyone would have a close association with God.

God's nature is holy and requires complete freedom from sin to associate with him. So, God was stuck with a dilemma. He desires to associate with people, but the peoples' sin keeps God from associating with them. And the purpose of the Bible is to describe the dilemma and to show how he solved it.

[Corvus]

If God were to hardwire humans to believe in Him, there would be no free will. Furthermore, if He somehow made His existence so obvious that no one could reasonably deny it (i.e. as obvious as the fact that the sun exists), there would be no free will.

Lucifer had free will and he rebelled against God. I don't see how making one possibility far more alluring than the other cancels free will. The choice is not being removed, but the doubts about which choice is correct.

[agnostic_pilgrim]

"God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be tortured for eternity in hell. That sir, is not free will. It would be akin to a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man says this we call him a psychopath and cry out for his imprisonment. When god says the same we call him "loving" and build churches in his honor."

-William C. Easttom II


Another put it more bluntly:

"Love means forgiving even those who don't worship you." - Man

contrast with...

"If you don't worship me, I'll force you to live in a lake of fire for eternity. But I love you. No, really..." - God


This "Worship me, or I'll torture you forever" concept of Christianity, the very thing that kept me in Christianity, is also the very thing that made me break free from it.

I have other intellectual reasons for leaving the fold but this sure contributed a lot.