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]

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.

Hmmm...let me cogitate a moment...

God -> Creation -> Universe -> 15 by -> Man -> Fall From Grace -> Millenia of struggle, suffering etc. -> Judgement Day -> Some to Hell forever -> Some to final reward in heaven -> Hallelujah

vs.

God -> Man -> Heaven -> Hallelujah

How is this last option not the most with the least?

Another favorite: we eventually arrive where everything began.

With option two we get there immediately.

Lots of good zingers to consider.

I'm considered a good zinger. I zang a few zongs last night at Karaoke.

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

Sorry, but...I'm missing the light...?

[Curious]

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!

You still miss my point I am afraid. It is not just regarding omnipotence that this type of argument fails but in all cases. The fact that you use omnipotence in a way that creates the dichotomy is the reason that I used this in the explanation. I will try to make myself clearer using another example:

A man is wearing all black
The man takes off a white jacket.


As you can see this argument is logically inconsistent. The second statement contradicts the first statement and therefore cannot be used to draw any logical conclusion. The argument so far cannot be used to infer anything other than the fact that it is inconsistent.

[The Happy Humanist]

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.

OK, that's it, my eyes are curling up again.

How would this not count as creating experience for Himself?

I beg your pardon, I meant "simulate experience." As in, not involving sentient beings that suffer. Hey, aren't you the one who will brook no limitations to "omnipotence"? So you must agree with me, he must be able to simulate experiences accurately. Which renders this entire universe redundant.

As for the tsunami, I don't suggest that God is directly responsible for all the worlds misfortunes.

Apparently you don't understand my thesis. He is responsible in that the tsunami would never have happened if he had not created the universe.

[The Happy Humanist]

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!

You still miss my point I am afraid. It is not just regarding omnipotence that this type of argument fails but in all cases. The fact that you use omnipotence in a way that creates the dichotomy is the reason that I used this in the explanation. I will try to make myself clearer using another example:

A man is wearing all black
The man takes off a white jacket.


As you can see this argument is logically inconsistent. The second statement contradicts the first statement and therefore cannot be used to draw any logical conclusion. The argument so far cannot be used to infer anything other than the fact that it is inconsistent.

Exactly. And it is inconsistent because both of the statements can't be true.

Light bulb going off yet?

[harvey1]

Hmmm...let me cogitate a moment... God -> Creation -> Universe -> 15 by -> Man -> Fall From Grace -> Millenia of struggle, suffering etc. -> Judgement Day -> Some to Hell forever -> Some to final reward in heaven -> Hallelujah vs. God -> Man -> Heaven -> Hallelujah How is this last option not the most with the least?

Well, it didn't start off with a bang and end with poof.

Another favorite: we eventually arrive where everything began.

With option two we get there immediately.

But yeah, you skipped the proof. If you can't prove it, then it's not a theorem.

Sorry, but...I'm missing the light...?

That's why you need to go to the other thread. First thing, blow out atheism from possibly being true. Next step, see the light.

[Curious]

How would this not count as creating experience for Himself?

I beg your pardon, I meant "simulate experience." As in, not involving sentient beings that suffer. Hey, aren't you the one who will brook no limitations to "omnipotence"? So you must agree with me, he must be able to simulate experiences accurately. Which renders this entire universe redundant.

You said it. Would an omnipotent God be able to simulate experiences so convincingly that the simulated inhabitants of the simulated universe believe that it was actually real? Most definitely. Does the fact that you find the universe so convincing lead you to believe that God is all-powerful? As for this "simulated" universe being redundant, you just said that it was the best option.

As for the tsunami, I don't suggest that God is directly responsible for all the worlds misfortunes.

Apparently you don't understand my thesis. He is responsible in that the tsunami would never have happened if he had not created the universe.

Apparently you believe that in order for me to debate with you I have to agree with you. It's not that I don't understand your position, I don't agree with it.
Am I to believe that you are stating here that the tsunami actually proves the existence of God. That's a strange conclusion.

[Curious]

Exactly. And it is inconsistent because both of the statements can't be true.

Light bulb going off yet?

But in your argument the statement that God is all-powerful cannot be true because you limit Him. How can He be all black AND white at the same time? The question of being all-good does not even arise because of the inconsist degree of power you attribute to Him. To suggest that there is a restriction on the response of an all-poweful entity is equivalent to saying that something that is white is all black or that an apple is removed from a bag which contains only oranges. Until you make an argument that is logically consistent then even if it appears to make sense to you, it does not make any sense really.

[harvey1]

But in your argument the statement that God is all-powerful cannot be true because you limit Him. How can He be all black AND white at the same time? The question of being all-good does not even arise because of the inconsist degree of power you attribute to Him. To suggest that there is a restriction on the response of an all-poweful entity is equivalent to saying that something that is white is all black or that an apple is removed from a bag which contains only oranges. Until you make an argument that is logically consistent then even if it appears to make sense to you, it does not make any sense really.

I see what you're trying to say, but what if being all-powerful and being all-good are two contradictory positions? Is it incorrect to show they are inconsistent by using the terms in the way they are normally interpreted?

Let me use your example,

1. A man is wearing all black
2. The man takes off a white jacket.

(C) A man cannot wear all black and take off a white jacket

The conclusion is right, is it not? We don't know which statement is wrong. We only know that one of the statements is wrong. I think what THH is saying is that one of the statements is wrong. It doesn't necessarily mean that all-powerful is poorly conceived, perhaps God is not all-good (I'm talking as a fool...). Is it his responsibility to structure the statements so that all-powerful is consistent with being all-good? That would be his underlying point, that they are not consistent.

[Curious]

I see what you're trying to say, but what if being all-powerful and being all-good are two contradictory positions? Is it incorrect to show they are inconsistent by using the terms in the way they are normally interpreted?

Let me use your example,

1. A man is wearing all black
2. The man takes off a white jacket.

(C) A man cannot wear all black and take off a white jacket

The conclusion is right, is it not? We don't know which statement is wrong. We only know that one of the statements is wrong. I think what THH is saying is that one of the statements is wrong. It doesn't necessarily mean that all-powerful is poorly conceived, perhaps God is not all-good (I'm talking as a fool...). Is it his responsibility to structure the statements so that all-powerful is consistent with being all-good? That would be his underlying point, that they are not consistent.

I hoped that the example would have been sufficiently clear to avoid further expansion but I will attempt to clarify my point once more.
The argument of the Happy Humanist can be reduced to the following:

An entity cannot be all-good because an entity that has unlimited power is not also shown to be of limited power.

This is obviously a nonsensical argument. I understand THH's point but I point out that such an argument is fallacious.

[harvey1]

Curious,

I would ask that you re-consider THH's argument:

My thesis again, in a nutshell: God is all-powerful. God is all-good. Given the following solution set:

- create the universe and all that must (by your own thesis) go with it, good, bad and ugly,
- not create the universe and thereby avoid all the nastiness,

...an all-good God MUST choose not to create said universe. Period. Being all-powerful, he would have the power NOT to create the universe. Being all-good, he would be constrained from creating this universe, or any universe in which physical laws would lead to the suffering of sentient beings, GIVEN THAT HE HAD THE CHOICE NOT TO. The existence of the universe therefore disproves the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God.

It seems like he is not saying that "[a]n entity cannot be all-good because an entity that has unlimited power is not also shown to be of limited power." Where in his argument does he suggest that God is not all-good because he is not shown to have limited power? His thesis seems to be there are two incompatible statements about God, namely, being all-good and being all-powerful. I'm having trouble following your argument that he is defining all-powerful as a contradiction. He is simply going along with a popular definition of being all-powerful, that is, having the choice to create or not to create.