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?

[harvey1]

Hello again Spetey,

Let me repost the rough draft since I'll be referring to it...

(I)Rules of existence:

1. God is all-powerful meaning that God is ultimate power
2. Alpha state is how the universe can begin
3. Omega state is how the universe can come to a final eternal "end"
4. God is all-good meaning that God's existence is consistent with there being all-good in the Universe
5. God is the laws of physics
   1. The laws are based on a hierarchy where lower laws are lower functions of God's mind, higher laws are higher functions of God's mind
   2. The Lord: The higher functions of God's mind is what we normally mean by "God," but to avoid confusion, let's call these higher functions the "Lord"
   3. The Lord's Moral Constraint: The Lord is all-good meaning that the Lord would do nothing to bring harm to creation and would work only for good in the Universe
   4. The laws refer only to the ultimate true laws which may not match our current understanding
   5. Our current understanding of the laws refer to mainly the lower functions of God's mind
   6. In order to be a law (i.e., refer to God), the laws must all be necessitated laws
   7. "Laws" not necessitated are not true laws, but may only refer to a true necessitated law
   8. All laws (i.e., necessitated laws) must be consistent and cohere with each other. The Lord cannot violate the lower laws.
   9. Physical Constraints:The lower laws might have some pretty specific constraints (i.e., based on our current understanding this appears to be the case). For example, the lower laws must be described as minimum laws, conservation principles must apply, spontaneous symmetry breaking must be characteristically indeterminate, etc..
   10. Physical Loopholes:In order for the Lord to affect consequences generally forbidden by the lower laws, a loophole must be found in the lower laws that allow the Lord to affect the lower laws without violation of the consistency of those lower laws. The loopholes in the lower laws might include using the minimum principle to reach the goals of the Lord through the process of time, the Lord might use quantum laws to temporarily violate conservation laws, the Lord might statistically meet the requirements of spontaneous symmetry breaking by selecting the time and place of intervention of the Lord's will very selectively.
   11. Law of Statistical Averaging:In the case of statistical averaging to satisfy the lower laws, the lower laws may require statistical averaging that includes other universes besides our own.

(II)Rules for Allowing Evil

1. The Lord's constraints mean that evil is allowed in the temporary timeframe so that the Lord's will can be accomplished without violation of those constraints
2. Violation of the constraints could lead to a paradox
   1. Some potential (in principle) violations might be paradoxial to both physical and moral constraints, or paradoxial to physical but not moral, or paradoxial to moral but not physical
   2. There may exist violations that are near paradoxial but cannot become paradoxes because paradoxes are not allowed (or simply are not physically possible due to the constraints make it impossible), so therefore something else undesirable takes place which are not paradoxial but allow paradoxes to be avoided, and hence are required
3. The Lord may allow evil (e.g., tsunamis) because:
   1. To stop a tsunami means violating a physical constraint (e.g., the lower laws require a tsunami to happen)
   2. To stop a tsunami means violating a moral constraint (e.g., if the Lord uses an opportunity to fix the dice to stop the tsunami, then the law of statistical averaging (see above) may require that more damage is done because the Lord is constrained to act in more morally pressing situations in other parts of the Universe
4. We do not live in the best of all possible universes since our universe might be (and probably is) just one member of an ensemble universe (metauniverse) where evils are statistically averaged and we see approximately similar amounts of evil and good as the other universes (i.e., the paths between Alpha state and Omega state)
5. We do live in the best possible Universe, and that is because it is the only possible Universe (i.e., any other potential possibilities are ruled out because they lead to paradox and therefore are prevented from existing since they do not reach the Omega state).

Do you have any reason that might appeal to someone who doesn't already believe it?

As I've already stated, you are making the claim that an all-good, all-powerful God cannot co-exist with evil. In the process of making your claim that this is true, you've asked that I show how your arguments can fail. I've presented one case where it is possible that your argument could fail, but I suspect that there are hundreds of other arguments. Who knows, maybe every argument that have been used by a theist is right, just a little tweaking of those arguments is all that was needed. I'm not going to worry about those other counterarguments, I'll just provide the one that I'm most comfortable with (i.e., since I happen to believe it is the case). As for a reason that might appeal to someone else, I would refer them to our thread that tells whether God exists and establish God's existence first. That's the first step in the process of believing in an all-good, all-powerful God. Unfortunately you're not at that point.

Okay, let's look at the argument for a second. These three sentences are inconsistent, and so to be consistent one of them must be abandoned:
[*] If there is an all-good, all-powerful entity, there is no unnecessary evil.
[*] There is unnecessary evil, like the tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents.
[*] There is an all-good, all-powerful entity.
To believe all three of these at once would be contradictory, agreed? That is, it's impossible for all three to be true, right? The problem is: which of these three should we throw out?

Spetey, we've gone over that list at least a dozen times, and I've shown multitude of problems with each of those items. Since it's been some time since you and I've had this discussion, why not instead re-read this thread and review my arguments on this topic. It will save us both some time re-hashing these arguments once more.

Now, I say that of the three, (c) is the easiest to throw out given all our other reasons for belief. You say that no, you have such excellent reasons for (c) that they outweigh the very plausible claim (b). Right? But these had better be darn good reasons!

They are very good reasons. Atheism is just inconsistent with the way the universe is and it is inconsistent in being able to arrive at a universe the way it appears to us as being.

Because it is a very strong intuitive view that the tsunami was a horrible disaster that did not have any great purpose. So to show that (c) is more plausible than (b) is a huge burden

It is you, though, making the claim here that (c) should be rejected. It doesn't matter if (c) is right or not. All that matters is whether your claims against (c) are strong enough to consider as warranted to doubt (c). This requires us to look at the options available which save (c). Actually, even if we can find no options that save (c), that doesn't mean that (c) should be rejected, it just means that we need very good reasons to believe (c). However, if we have options that save (c), which I presented one, then the onus is on you to give other reasons to reject (c).

But I have yet to hear reasons to believe (c) anywhere

Well, then you're not a very good listener. We've discussed this thoroughly on this thread, and if you read that thread, there are no answers coming back from you or anyone else as to how to explain the laws of physics or the random cause of a universe in an atheist mindset. I can't help it if someone believes they can still hold a belief even if they cannot respond to key issues. That's not my fault. One should base their beliefs on good reasons. If one chooses not to do so, that's their issue, not mine. That's where I see atheism today, and until I start getting some real answers to those issues, I don't see what more that I can do but raise those issues.

let alone reasons that are so knock-down convincing that they make (c) more plausible than (b)! Can you start to reveal some of your reasons for (c) that are so convincing that they make it plausible to say the tsunami was a good thing after all?

The tsunami was not a good thing. Why do you try to make my argument as one that says it was? The tsunami is a consequence, Spetey, a consequence of matters that happen in a Universe that just happens to bring about evil.

In principle, an omnipotent being could prevent earthquakes of any magnitude or any location in space or time.

Good! At last, we have agreed that it is possible for an omnipotent being to stop tsunamis and earthquakes. You'll commit to this, right?

It is conceptually possible in terms of strict logic for an omnipotent being to stop tsunamis and earthquakes. I'll commit to that. But, and here's the part that no matter how many times I say it just doesn't seem to get through, is that there are other divine constraints on God besides allowing conceptual omnipotent powers to dictate the universe. Look at II.3.a and II.3.b in my rough draft. God can, as a matter of logical conception, violate those constraints as an omnipotent being, but doing so brings consequences that God, as an omnipotent being, cannot stop from happening. God has to judge the use of that omnipotent power situation by situation, and decide when and where and how to utilize the power that God has. Therefore, when using the term "omnipotent" I am not referring to all those conceptual possibilities that ultimately do not bring about a consistent Omega state. Omnipotence only refers to the power needed to bring about the divine will. This is the property that God possesses.

Of course, obviously. That A is possible to do does not mean that A is good to do. These are two very different questions. You say that it is possible for God to stop a tsunami. So since the tsunami wasn't stopped, you have to say (to defend an all-good, all-powerful God) that it was good God didn't stop the tsunami (the same way it's good not to nuke a country committing genocide). And this is what I want to know about. Why do you think it was good not to stop the tsunami?

God is following certain constraints (II.3.a and II.3.b) and it is good that God follow those constraints because not following those constraints might lead to paradox if inconsistent actions in the natural laws (on the part of the Creator) start popping up, or lead to unfairness on the part of God by not intervening fairly to everyone in the Universe (e.g., statistical averaging, etc.).

Here it sounds like you're saying it would be paradoxical for God to prevent the tsunami. This is tantamount to saying it's strictly impossible for God to do so.

Let's don't equivocate on omnipotence. God can do anything that is divinely possible. That's omnipotence. There is one state in the Universe that is God's will, and that is the Omega state. This state is possible and God is getting the universe to that point. God is therefore omnipotent and omnibenevolent for bringing about this state. There are sub-goals that would be highly desirable to accomplish on the way to the Omega state (e.g., reduction of evil to zero), however it is not divinely possible given other constraints on God besides strict logical issues. There's the constraints of II.3.a and II.3.b., and these impede the divine will to do what is conceptually possible for God as far as logic is concerned.

But we should be very clear that you don't mean this--you mean it's possible but not good, right? (Or are you contradicting yourself on this matter again? Either it was possible for God to prevent this tsunami, or it wasn't! Please commit!)

I'm not contradicting myself and I am not committing to your equivocated term for omnipotence. I believe God is all-powerful but only in terms of God being able to do whatever is divinely possible (i.e., wouldn't lead to a final world of negative results).

Now, "paradox" stuff aside, what you presumably mean is that it for God to prevent the tsunami would be possible but would have worse consequences of some kind. And as I have said many times, it is possible that permitting the tsunami prevented some worse evil. Again I ask: why think this is actually the case? The mere fact that (b) might be false is not enough to single it out for rejection.

Because the tsunami is caused by the laws of physics.

(a) and (c) might also be false. So we have to consider which is most likely to be false. What reason do you have to think that (b) is the culprit?

I have reason to believe that many of your terms are skewed. To be honest, because of those skewed terms, it is hard to know if we agree on the meaning of any of those clauses unless we agree on the terms.

What reason do you have to think that God's allowing the tsunami prevented something worse? Absent one, why do you believe it was good for God to do (given that it was possible)?

Well, for one thing, I would envision a change in the laws of physics would be needed to stop the Tsunami and I could see a whole bunch of bad things happening as a result (e.g., galaxies falling apart, real mayhem). Of course, God might be able to do something without changing the laws of physics, but I don't know how that might screw up the Omega state or get God to act outside of the divine nature (e.g., become unfair). It seems that there are no good options. Certainly changing the laws of physics would be the worst one even though, conceptually speaking, God could do that.

[spetey]

Hi Harvey and gang!

I think I'll try something new in the interest of trying to engage the dialog better. I'm going to try to capture your argument in my own words, to make sure that I understand your argument, and to make sure that you feel understood. Doesn't that sound like it might be useful? Worth a try, anyway. We've mostly been talking past each other lately, it feels like.

First of all, it sounds to me like these passages are a decent summary of your position:

God can, as a matter of logical conception, violate those constraints as an omnipotent being, but doing so brings consequences that God, as an omnipotent being, cannot stop from happening. God has to judge the use of that omnipotent power situation by situation, and decide when and where and how to utilize the power that God has. Therefore, when using the term "omnipotent" I am not referring to all those conceptual possibilities that ultimately do not bring about a consistent Omega state. Omnipotence only refers to the power needed to bring about the divine will. This is the property that God possesses. ...

There is one state in the Universe that is God's will, and that is the Omega state. This state is possible and God is getting the universe to that point. God is therefore omnipotent and omnibenevolent for bringing about this state. There are sub-goals that would be highly desirable to accomplish on the way to the Omega state (e.g., reduction of evil to zero), however it is not divinely possible given other constraints on God besides strict logical issues.

Would you agree these passages are a good summary of your position with respect to the problem of evil? I'll base my reconstruction on them for now.

Now let me see if I can reconstruct it in my own words in a manner acceptable to you.

God can do whatever is logically possible and God should will; in this sense God is omnipotent. God's supreme will is to bring about the Omega State, which is an ending, and which is an ideally good state. Everything else God wills is as a means toward reaching this Omega State. In other words, God judges each potential action of God's on the basis of whether or not it will help bring about the Omega State.

God judged that God should permit the tsunami because interfering would require breaking laws of physics, which would in turn have vast negative consequences. Interfering would not lead to the Omega State. Thus the best way to bring about the Omega State was to permit the tsunami.

Does that sound like your position? If not, please help me see what parts I'm missing.


spetey

[harvey1]

Hello Spetey,

I hope all is going well with you.

Would you agree these passages are a good summary of your position with respect to the problem of evil? I'll base my reconstruction on them for now.

They seem pretty representative.

God can do whatever is logically possible and God should will; in this sense God is omnipotent. God's supreme will is to bring about the Omega State, which is an ending, and which is an ideally good state. Everything else God wills is as a means toward reaching this Omega State. In other words, God judges each potential action of God's on the basis of whether or not it will help bring about the Omega State.

So good so far...

God judged that God should permit the tsunami because interfering would require breaking laws of physics, which would in turn have vast negative consequences. Interfering would not lead to the Omega State. Thus the best way to bring about the Omega State was to permit the tsunami.

I just want to point out that breaking the laws of physics is only one part of the reason why God may not interfere with the tsunami. As I mentioned, the laws of physics might have loopholes that allow God to stop tsunamis, but these exceptions might be very restricted "get out of jail" cards that God has to use prudently. If God is not prudent then God would be in contradiction with the divine nature, which cannot happen since God cannot lack prudence and still be God.

Also, there is not a best way to bring about the Omega State, there is only one way to bring about the Omega State, and that's the way that God chooses. If there were other ways to bring about the Omega State, then God would have probably chosen those ways too. If part of this only way in a particular situation required a flip of a coin (e.g., quantum processes), then this outcome may not have been the only possible choice to reach the Omega State, but the process of flipping a coin was the only possible process to reach the Omega State.

Does that sound like your position? If not, please help me see what parts I'm missing.

I've tried to highlight the main issues that are missing. I hope this helps.

[spetey]

Hello Spetey,

I hope all is going well with you.

Thanks, "and also with you."

God can do whatever is logically possible and God should will; in this sense God is omnipotent. God's supreme will is to bring about the Omega State, which is an ending, and which is an ideally good state. Everything else God wills is as a means toward reaching this Omega State. In other words, God judges each potential action of God's on the basis of whether or not it will help bring about the Omega State.

So good so far...

Good!

Now let me retry the rest:

Once God has established the physical laws for a world, God can break them, but only very rarely, and doing so has large negative consequences. To break them too often would not lead to the Omega State. Therefore God rarely interferes in worlds once created. For this reason, permitting the tsunami was the only way to reach the Omega State.

Does that seem right? If not, what's missing or inaccurate?


spetey

[harvey1]

Once God has established the physical laws for a world, God can break them, but only very rarely, and doing so has large negative consequences. To break them too often would not lead to the Omega State. Therefore God rarely interferes in worlds once created. For this reason, permitting the tsunami was the only way to reach the Omega State.

Does that seem right? If not, what's missing or inaccurate?

Ahhhh... no. God cannot break the laws of physics. God is the laws of physics. Higher aspects of those laws, i.e., the conscious layer of those laws, is able to interfere in matters that are not dictated by the laws of physics, but this is a "get out of jail" card in that the opportunities are limited. To be technical to what I believe, those higher aspects of God's mind are able to influence the world at critical points of phase transitions, and this is during a spontaneous symmetry breaking event. Tsunamis are permitted because these spontaneous symmetry breaking events are special moments that do not come along often in the life of a system, and there are more important priorities than saving innocent lives, namely, getting the entire system to arrive at the Omega state without God acting outside the divine nature.

[Curious]

If God wants to destroy evil...

In the Bible it states that only after Adam ate from the tree of knowledge did he know good from evil. Since God forbade this very act of eating from the tree it seems unlikely that either good ar evil had any place in the original plan for mankind. Many people believe that it was due to this act of disobedience that mankind fell from grace and death was brought to the world. But how could Adam and all his descendants be punished for committing an act when he had no notion of right or wrong? How can all mankind be born into sin due to Adam when Adam was incapable of sin? If I told a child not to touch a fire because it will burn, would the child sin by touching it? If it is more wrong to disobey God than to disobey man, how would Adam know this?

[spetey]

Back again!

Ahhhh... no. God cannot break the laws of physics. God is the laws of physics. Higher aspects of those laws, i.e., the conscious layer of those laws, is able to interfere in matters that are not dictated by the laws of physics, but this is a "get out of jail" card in that the opportunities are limited.

Okay, right, sorry, I forgot that part. Let me try again. Here now is my understanding of your response to the Problem of Evil:

God can do whatever is logically possible and God should will; in this sense God is omnipotent. God's supreme will is to bring about the Omega State, which is an ending, and which is an ideally good state. Everything else God wills is as a means toward reaching this Omega State. In other words, God judges each potential action of God's on the basis of whether or not it will help bring about the Omega State.

Once God has established how God's lower self will behave (that is, the unconcious physical laws for a world), God can change that behavior, but only very rarely, and doing so has large negative consequences. To break them too often would not lead to the Omega State. Therefore God rarely interferes in worlds once created. For this reason, permitting the tsunami was the only way to reach the Omega State.

Now, does that seem right? If not, what's missing or inaccurate?


spetey

[perplexed101]

Perhaps today the misconceptions about christianity can be expressed with the following:

1. the majority of people worldwide are familiar with a separation in meaning and signifigance between say a prophet like Elijah and Jesus Christ but does what Elijah and what he did in all of what he did become dilluted because of how the roles (lack of a better word) has been defined with the principle notion to respect and to signify rather than to restrain? to the extent that what is revealed resembles more like a map and a spark resembling consent rather than an insult?

a. if we apply some of these principles not in context to old testament selected but rather to latter beginnings of Act 2:16 and 17 then we start to see a certain tone, perhaps more in a broader sense than some people who would still reguard it in parallel to old testament selected although not as refined. This event is one of the fulfilling moments that applies to fulfilling the law for as the prophecy of Joel was in place so then the latter beginnings in Acts was in placement and recognized. John 14:16 has oftentimes been referred in connection to the same event and would apply directly as does John 16:13. So, would all the verbs to describe placement from origin be signifed back towards the originator? obviously it would but this is where doctrines conflict. It is therefore evident that signifying the Holy Spirit/ the Holy Ghost / the Comforter is actually in reference not for the action of placement but rather the origin as a means to be involved on a personal level. This would then be consistent thought throughout all passages of scripture and even the book of Enoch.

[harvey1]

Once God has established how God's lower self will behave (that is, the unconcious physical laws for a world), God can change that behavior, but only very rarely, and doing so has large negative consequences. To break them too often would not lead to the Omega State. Therefore God rarely interferes in worlds once created. For this reason, permitting the tsunami was the only way to reach the Omega State.

Let me re-word it like this:

The nature of God's existence establishes the degree of freedom of how the lower aspect of God's will behaves (i.e., how the laws of physics will function). The higher aspect of God's will can affect the behavior of the world without hindering the world's path to the Omega state, but only under very particular circumstances, and without violating the logical nature of the lower aspect of God's will. To break the lower aspect of divine will would not lead to the Omega state. Therefore, the higher aspect of God's will often intervenes in worlds once created, but the intervention is restricted to the point where good and evil battle in the world. For this reason, permitting the tsunami was the only way to reach the Omega state.

Notice that I had to change a few things...

[perplexed101]

Once God has established how God's lower self will behave (that is, the unconcious physical laws for a world), God can change that behavior, but only very rarely, and doing so has large negative consequences. To break them too often would not lead to the Omega State. Therefore God rarely interferes in worlds once created. For this reason, permitting the tsunami was the only way to reach the Omega State.

Let me re-word it like this:

The nature of God's existence establishes the degree of freedom of how the lower aspect of God's will behaves (i.e., how the laws of physics will function). The higher aspect of God's will can affect the behavior of the world without hindering the world's path to the Omega state, but only under very particular circumstances, and without violating the logical nature of the lower aspect of God's will. To break the lower aspect of divine will would not lead to the Omega state. Therefore, the higher aspect of God's will often intervenes in worlds once created, but the intervention is restricted to the point where good and evil battle in the world. For this reason, permitting the tsunami was the only way to reach the Omega state.

Notice that I had to change a few things...

if i understand you correctly, are you stating a reaction was due and the tsunami was a triggering mechanism for an indirect affect towards the inevitable? indirectly i mean resembling a ripple effect without deeply impacting the balance of the war of good and evil. Your explanation towards justifiable cause would make sense towards the theistic inclinations while scientific observation would also state that frequent natural disasters such as that tsunami and earthquakes as intervals between occurances shrink could cause larger variances in the size of future events. Personally, i agree with you if i have captured the meaning towards the infrequent use of the term Omega state.