I think a huge motivator for debate here stems around us (fallible humans) applying requirements for what God (the omnipotent, omniscient, and perhaps all-loving Being) should have, especially in regards to moral stances and decisions.
1) Now on the one hand, there is the argument that we can't confidently make requirements for God. If we come from a stance of ignorance and God from a stance of all-knowing, we could make a requirement that is incorrect for God.
ex) A good God should believe x is wrong and y is right. A good God should have interfered to prevent so-and-so events from happening.
2) On the other hand, if we solely take on the previous view then how can we make any progress whatsoever for confidently saying what God should be like? Surely there must be some logical way to make requirements for what God should be like even though we are ignorant and not perfect and God by definition is perfect.
(1) and (2) are at odds with each other. Where do we go from here?
Logically Applying Requirements for God
Moderator: Moderators
-
2ndRateMind
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
- Location: Pilgrim on another way
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Post #11
As a comment on the above, it seems Epicurus put it just as well as St Augustine, and maybe better:
Best wishes, 2RM.
I hope I have provided previously a line of reasoning as to why God might be able to destroy evil, but not willing, and not malevolent, either."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?"
Best wishes, 2RM.
