If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[The Happy Humanist]

I don't know what you mean by all-powerful, but that's not what I mean by it. When I use that term, I mean that if something is physically possible, then nothing can prevent God from obtaining God's will. If something is not logically possible, then it is absolutely meaningless to apply that term since a logically inconsistent universe would not be able to apply a meaningful use of the term "all-powerful." Contradictions would quickly emerge (e.g., can God lift a rock that God says cannot be lifted).

Granted, granted granted. I long ago got past that old "rock" thing. (Actually Murray showed me how it could be done with dynamite and a front-loader anyway). My problem is more with the all-good part than the omnipotence part.

If God wants to do so because God sees them as necessary, then God will choose to create those universes. Or, if you prefer, God must create those universes because God wants to create those universes. God wants to create those universes because they meet a unique need that God has which "not creating" those universes would not provide.

Let's start with the pre-creation state. "In the beginning..." there ain't nuttin' out there, just God and his "needs." From all we can tell, he apparently needs humans to worship him, or glorify him, or maybe just gawk at him. What is to prevent him from creating them in heaven, in the state in which they will supposedly be in after death (if they've been good little Christians)? Perhaps you'll tell me that there may be some other need, of which we mere mortals are totally ignorant...fine, but I don't buy "The Lord works in mysterious ways" arguments - they're like a permanent "Get Out of Jail Free" card, totally worthless in a debate.

More to the point, what possible need of an all-powerful, non-corporeal, immanent, transcendant, UNLIMITED being could only be met by creating a physical (and therefore LIMITING) universe?

Finally, do you grant my assertion that in order to satisfy the all-powerful attribute, if God determined that not creating the universe would create a higher good-to-evil ratio than creating the universe, he would be compelled by his nature to opt out on the universe-creation shtick? And that he has the power to do so?

Yeah, why is it that you lurk on this thread but not on the ones that clearly show that atheism is faulty? Such as this one. This thread is just to wrap things up against the atheist. That is, we're just considering all of the minor objections before we once and for all conclude that atheism is completely without merit. However, the main arguments to abandon atheism are happening in these other threads.

The (hyper)activity in this thread always places it at the top of the list, and I just never make it further down. One of these years I'll search from the bottom up...

[harvey1]

The problem with putting limits on omnipotence is that it ceases to be omnipotence which means it is unlimited. To say that God is limited to logical possibility misses the point somewhat. It is not a redefinition of omnipotence that is required but an understanding of what is a valid argument. If I was to ask if it was possible for God to simultaneously exist and not exist then that question would itself be paradoxical.This question cannot be used as a basis for logical conclusion as the question is erroneous. It is the argument that is inconsistent and not the nature of God. The argument itself is unsupportable and therefore not applicable. It is not possible to draw logical conclusions from questions that are not logically consistent.

I agree to some extent, however someone might not feel that God is bound by logic, in which case they really mean to say that God is omnipotent in the sense that you cannot restrict God by human logics. This is a very popular belief by many people. They really think that God defies logic. They are often referred to as mystics.

(Btw, I put a couple of added terms on the bottom of that post. I added weak, moderate, and strong omnipotence. I thought it was necessary because omnipotence is not just a matter of determining what is possible for God to control, it is also a matter of goal-reaching and the compromises that must be made in doing so.)

[Curious]

More to the point, what possible need of an all-powerful, non-corporeal, immanent, transcendant, UNLIMITED being could only be met by creating a physical (and therefore LIMITING) universe?

Perhaps to attain omniscience. A universe that is limited, with limited inhabitants, might be the only way for God to experience ignorance and powerlessness through it's inhabitants. Maybe God wished to sense awe in something greater than Himself. Who knows?

[The Happy Humanist]

I mean compelled by his very nature. "I am all-powerful, which means I can do anything I WANT to do. But I am also all-good, which means I only WANT to do good. If it ain't good, I won't do it. That's just the kind of deity I am."

"I'm also all-smart. I know that the choice of not-creating-the-universe is infinitely better than creating-the-universe, because it avoids all evil, both necessary and unnecessary, all of which I can foresee (because I am all-seeing). And, best of all, I can create beings to worship me right here in heaven, WITH free will and WITHOUT sin. Yes, much better that way. Have my cake and eat it too. Yes, yes, yes. I can do all that. Cuz' I'm God. "

But...it didn't happen that way. Which tells me Mr. Omni-Everything cannot exist.

But this still does not solve the problem of the arguments dichotomy. To state that an all-powerful God would have restrictions contradicts the notion of God being all-powerful. As the argument is itself obviously seriously flawed how can you draw any meaningful conclusions from it?

Nice try, but the dichotomy does not stem from the all-powerful part, it stems from the all-good part in combination with the all-powerful part. You seem to be proposing that God would have the power to overcome his all-good nature and do something evil anyway. Fine. Now think it through....that's right, he would no longer be all-good. In a sense, you make my argument for me, to wit: That an all-powerful, all-good being cannot do bad things, and therefore is not all-powerful, and therefore is not God, at least not the one we all know and love.

[The Happy Humanist]

Perhaps to attain omniscience.

So he is not omniscient?

A universe that is limited, with limited inhabitants, might be the only way for God to experience ignorance and powerlessness through it's inhabitants. Maybe God wished to sense awe in something greater than Himself.

And he is not omnipotent to the point that he can create experience for himself? And for this, 350,000 south asians had to die horribly?

Who knows?

Who indeed. And with that rhetorical question, Harvey gets out of jail free.

[Curious]

Nice try, but the dichotomy does not stem from the all-powerful part, it stems from the all-good part in combination with the all-powerful part. You seem to be proposing that God would have the power to overcome his all-good nature and do something evil anyway. Fine. Now think it through....that's right, he would no longer be all-good. In a sense, you make my argument for me, to wit: That an all-powerful, all-good being cannot do bad things, and therefore is not all-powerful, and therefore is not God, at least not the one we all know and love.

But you miss the point. The dichotomy arises at your inconsistent use of the term all-powerful. You state that God would be compelled to either action or inaction, therefore limiting the response of God and therefore showing that such a constrained God would not be all-powerful. The argument is therefore logically inconsistent and cannot be used to draw logical conclusions.

[The Happy Humanist]

Who indeed. And with that rhetorical question, Harvey gets out of jail free.

I'm sorry, why did I think that was Harvey??

<sigh> I'm losing it.

[harvey1]

Let's start with the pre-creation state. "In the beginning..." there ain't nuttin' out there, just God and his "needs." From all we can tell, he apparently needs humans to worship him, or glorify him, or maybe just gawk at him. What is to prevent him from creating them in heaven, in the state in which they will supposedly be in after death (if they've been good little Christians)? Perhaps you'll tell me that there may be some other need, of which we mere mortals are totally ignorant...fine, but I don't buy "The Lord works in mysterious ways" arguments - they're like a permanent "Get Out of Jail Free" card, totally worthless in a debate. More to the point, what possible need of an all-powerful, non-corporeal, immanent, transcendant, UNLIMITED being could only be met by creating a physical (and therefore LIMITING) universe?

There's plenty of good reasons to suppose that the world should go through this process. One of my favorites is that God gets the most with the least. Another favorite: we eventually arrive where everything began. Lots of good zingers to consider.

Finally, do you grant my assertion that in order to satisfy the all-powerful attribute, if God determined that not creating the universe would create a higher good-to-evil ratio than creating the universe, he would be compelled by his nature to opt out on the universe-creation shtick? And that he has the power to do so?

No. I don't think it was that way at all. I think God only turns on light switches where the light works. If the light doesn't work, God doesn't turn it on. If it works, God turns it on.

[The Happy Humanist]

Nice try, but the dichotomy does not stem from the all-powerful part, it stems from the all-good part in combination with the all-powerful part. You seem to be proposing that God would have the power to overcome his all-good nature and do something evil anyway. Fine. Now think it through....that's right, he would no longer be all-good. In a sense, you make my argument for me, to wit: That an all-powerful, all-good being cannot do bad things, and therefore is not all-powerful, and therefore is not God, at least not the one we all know and love.

But you miss the point. The dichotomy arises at your inconsistent use of the term all-powerful. You state that God would be compelled to either action or inaction, therefore limiting the response of God and therefore showing that such a constrained God would not be all-powerful. The argument is therefore logically inconsistent and cannot be used to draw logical conclusions.

No, sorry, I gave you people a pass on the "rock so heavy he can't lift it" thing, but that doesn't mean that every argument showing a logical defect in "omnipotence" is invalid. Again, you're making my argument for me! You're absolutely right, if God can't do bad things, that would be a limitation on "all-powerful." If God can do anything physically possible, and bad things happen unnecessarily (given from my thesis), then that is a limitation on all-good. My point is that the two cannot co-exist, physically, logically, morally, any-ly! Therefore, God cannot exist!

[Curious]

Perhaps to attain omniscience.

So he is not omniscient?

Omniscience only requires knowledge of what is while ignorance requires lack of such knowledge. Before the existence of limited beings, ignorance did not exist. Before limitation of knowledge there would be no ignorance.

A universe that is limited, with limited inhabitants, might be the only way for God to experience ignorance and powerlessness through it's inhabitants. Maybe God wished to sense awe in something greater than Himself.

And he is not omnipotent to the point that he can create experience for himself? And for this, 350,000 south asians had to die horribly?

How would this not count as creating experience for Himself? As for the tsunami, I don't suggest that God is directly responsible for all the worlds misfortunes.