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?

[bleedingisaac]

Curious wrote:

The all-goodness of a thing can and does have a bearing on the badness of it.
The level of power (or omnipotence) does have a bearing on its lack of power.

It seems like you are forgetting that both adjectives are referring to the same "thing"--viz. a god.

If a god is all-good, then that same god cannot be all-bad (or any bad, for that matter).

So, sure an all-powerful god could do anything (even evil things), but an all-good god is restricted from doing certain things. If a god is both all-powerful and all-good, then there are certain things that an all-good god cannot do in order to still be called "good," right?

[Curious]

So, can you define what you mean by "all-good"?



If an all-powerful being was fully evil, then would we be restricting its omnipotence by saying it must be evil to be fully evil?



Does an all-good attribute hold any restrictions on an omnipotent being? For example, could an all-good being also moonlight as the devil?

I just addressed these issues in my response to BleedingIsaac

[Curious]

It seems like you are forgetting that both adjectives are referring to the same "thing"--viz. a god.

If a god is all-good, then that same god cannot be all-bad (or any bad, for that matter).

So, sure an all-powerful god could do anything (even evil things), but an all-good god is restricted from doing certain things. If a god is both all-powerful and all-good, then there are certain things that an all-good god cannot do in order to still be called "good," right?

I addressed these points in my last post to you.

[bleedingisaac]

Curious wrote:

You say that to say God is good is to limit God to being good. This is not the case. If there is good and evil then good is that in conformity with God's action and will. Evil is that which is against it. To say that God is limited by what is good is therefore incorrect as it is good that is limited by the will and action of God. To say that God cannot perform an action that you see as evil is incorrect because if such an action was performed it would be in conformity with His will and action and therefore would be good.

My point is that you are trying to communicate something about your god to others. You are using language to do that. Particularly, you are using the word "good" to describe your god. That word has a meaning to the people to whom you are communicating. If, by that word, you are meaning something different than what is commonly understood by it, then you are not communicating to your audience. It is like my analogy of the mean-spirited dog. In that case, I was using the word "good" in a way that no one would agree with. If you suggest that a god can do things that we consider evil, but still be "good" you are not communicating.

If you were not trying to communicate something to others about your god, I would have no problem with your argument. Whatever a god does is good even if people consider it evil. But when you are trying to tell me something about your god by using a word in such a way that it expresses the opposite of the normal meaning, then you are failing to communicate with me.

As I would be misusing the word "good" to describe my mean-spirited dog, so you would be misusing the same word by describing a god that does what we commonly think of as evil.

In order for communication to occur, we must play by the rules of a common language game. It seems that you are refusing to play by these rules and are making it impossible to communicate.

If you want to express something about god's "goodness" (in your sense of the word), then perhaps it is better for you to create another word. I suggest the word smarf which you could define as "something that does things normally considered 'evil' but is still 'good' because that something is a god." Otherwise, I think you are misusing your terms and it is impossible to continue the discussion.

[Curious]

[
If you want to express something about god's "goodness" (in your sense of the word), then perhaps it is better for you to create another word. I suggest the word smarf which you could define as "something that does things normally considered 'evil' but is still 'good' because that something is a god." Otherwise, I think you are misusing your terms and it is impossible to continue the discussion.

Did you miss my definition of the word good? I tried to make it clear. I do not say that it is good BECAUSE it is God, I say it is good because it conforms with His will and action.

BTW I am not communicating anything about MY God. I have no assumption that my god is either all-good or all-powerful. I simply point out the errors in the arguments that purport to prove He isn't.

[bleedingisaac]

Curious wrote:

I do not say that it is good BECAUSE it is God, I say it is good because it conforms with His will and action.

And this is different from what I said, how? God is the measure of god's actions, right?

BTW I am not communicating anything about MY God. I have no assumption that my god is either all-good or all-powerful. I simply point out the errors in the arguments that purport to prove He isn't.

I'm not trying to prove that god isn't all-good or all-powerful either. I don't believe in a god at all.

What I am saying is that there is a logical contradiction for those who claim that a god is all-powerful, all-wise, and all-good according to the common definition of these words.

People (even if you are not one of them) describe their god in these terms. I am arguing that these terms are inappropriate given the condition of the world in which we live.

[Curious]

What I am saying is that there is a logical contradiction for those who claim that a god is all-powerful, all-wise, and all-good according to the common definition of these words.

People (even if you are not one of them) describe their god in these terms. I am arguing that these terms are inappropriate given the condition of the world in which we live.

I really do see your point but you might like to read my post where I specifically make reference to The Happy Humanist's thesis. I forward a somewhat absurd scenario in which an all-good god creates a universe where evil is allowed to exist within it. If a God was all-powerful, even such an absurd scenario as this would not be beyond His power.

[harvey1]

I read your definitions in your first post and have no problem with them. I think I'm speaking in terms of what you call the 'Logically possible meaning.' Is it logically possible for God to have created a world in which all of his goals should be accomplished without evil, pain, and suffering?

I'm not sure. I would think not. However, it is sure that it is not physically possible for this world, at least. That doesn't mean that this world shouldn't be created because a purely good world is physically out of reach.

Now, I would agree that there are some goals that might require suffering. If god wants to show compassion, for instance, there must be some amount of suffering. In this case, however, we would have to ask if this god can be called "good."

All-good is trying to bring about the most possible good given the obstacles at hand. So, God can be considered all-good on a positive side. If a theorem's proof will result in the theorem being considered true, then God can be constrained in allowing evil as a result of attempting to find a proof if to not do so would result in worse impact. This is also a definition of all-good, to eliminate as much harm as possible. That would be the negative side of all-good. So, God fits both the positive and negative aspect of being all-good.

Can my act still be called "good"? Isn't this analoguous to a god who wants to show compassion so he puts people in pain so he can show it? Is that a "good" action?

No, it is a very evil act and you shouldn't even be thinking that way. However, let me tell you what would be good. If there were a war which was caused by Fermat's last theorem being proved, and as a result, those tires were getting blown out by debris. If you offered your tires for free to those people at the risk of your own life, then you should be considered a very good person.

No, by "better" I mean the way in which we describe a "good" world. For example, I work at a tough, inner-city school in South Central, LA. There are many days that we have big gang fights and students are hurt. I wouldn't call that a "good" day at school. Some days, however, there are no incidents of violence and kids enjoy a program that we participate in. That is a "good" day. I would say that these days are better than the days in which there are violent incidents.

I think if you pursued that same logic, then you would be required to think that it would be better if the U.S. Department of Education were to shutdown that school along with all the other schools in poverty striken areas. Afterall, they are not as good as schools in Beverly Hills, so would it be better to allow only the good schools to educate children?

In the same way, I would say a world in which a god accomplishes his goals without evil, pain, and suffering is better than a world in which this god accomplishes the same goals with evil, pain, and suffering. Do you disagree with this?

Imagine if fundamentalists were controlling the Dept. of Education. I don't know about you, but I think it is good that children in South Central get to go to school despite the harsh circumstances (thank you for being a teacher who makes this kind of effort, by the way...). I would shutter to think that the Dept of Education would evaluate schools by this kind of criteria and then immediately shutdown a school based on some fundamentalist criteria. Every kid, despite the circumstances they grew up in, should have a right to succeed in life by getting to the point to where that history is behind them. I think this is what God believes about our world for all of us who emerge from the evil untarnished by it.

Do you mean that the world is answering certain questions that God has or that humans have? Did your god have certain questions that arose from his contemplation of the nature of existence? Are you are process theology guy?

I'm partially a process guy, but I think God is also a state of being, and a state of having become kind of guy. The "questions" aren't questions that arise out of curiosity (e.g., "hmm... what if I poke that lizard with a pin..."), they are questions that must be answered to avert paradox. These worlds are needed when the mere theory of our world won't provide a proof of a theorem, it requires it to exist.

If this is the case, I would have to go back to our definition of that word "good" again. Is it good to subject people to evil, pain, and suffering just to answer some questions that you have?

No. It is good to avert paradoxes by bringing peace and joy to the Universe and by producing universes like a tree produces fruit.

[bleedingisaac]

I asked:

Is it logically possible for God to have created a world in which all of his goals should be accomplished without evil, pain, and suffering?

Harvey responded:

I'm not sure. I would think not.

Then how can a god be said to be all-wise and all-powerful, but incapable of creating a world without evil, pain, and suffering?

That doesn't mean that this world shouldn't be created because a purely good world is physically out of reach.

My point is that a "purely good world" should not be physically out of reach of a god that is all-wise and all-powerful. That god should be able to create any kind of world he/she wishes, right? If a god is all-wise and all-powerful s/he was free to create a purely good world or the one that we have now. My argument is if a god could have created a "purely good world" then that god should have done so.

All-good is trying to bring about the most possible good given the obstacles at hand.

If a god created this world, then the "obstacles at hand" were also his creation and if he is all-wise and all-powerful, he should have been able to create a world without such obstacles.

This is also a definition of all-good, to eliminate as much harm as possible.

Again, though, if a god is all-wise and all-powerful he could have created the world in such a way as to eliminate all harm, not just "as much harm as possible."

I think if you pursued that same logic, then you would be required to think that it would be better if the U.S. Department of Education were to shutdown that school along with all the other schools in poverty striken areas.

That doesn't seem to follow my logic at all (though it sounds similar to the argument of "The Happy Humanist"). To be similar, the U.S. Department of Education would have to be all-wise and all-powerful and, then, they would not shut down the school, but rather develop a school that was impervious to gang violence.

I would shutter to think that the Dept of Education would evaluate schools by this kind of criteria and then immediately shutdown a school based on some fundamentalist criteria.

Again, though, I am not talking about 'shutting this world down.' I am arguing that an all-wise, all-powerful god should have created a world impervious to evil, pain, and suffering because it was the morally right thing to do and it should be within the power of this kind of god to do.

I'm partially a process guy, but I think God is also a state of being, and a state of having become kind of guy

I can't understand how, then, the problem of evil applies to you. As a "process guy" aren't you already acknowledging that god is not "all-wise" in the traditional sense of the term? According to process theology, there are things that a god does not know and learns through the process. This is not what is traditionally thought of when the term all-wise is applied.

In that case, my problem of evil does not apply to you because you do not agree with the premise that god is all-wise unless you are defining the term differently than the traditional conception (e.g. you could say that a god is 'all-wise' in that all the wisdom that is now available belongs to this god, but more wisdom will be made available in the future [which implies that your god is not atemporal] and your god will gain that too and will be always all-wise). There is no logical contradiction in that formulation and that kind of god could exist (though I find it highly doubtful).

The "questions" aren't questions that arise out of curiosity (e.g., "hmm... what if I poke that lizard with a pin..."), they are questions that must be answered to avert paradox. These worlds are needed when the mere theory of our world won't provide a proof of a theorem, it requires it to exist.

Can you flesh this out a little more?

[harvey1]

Then how can a god be said to be all-wise and all-powerful, but incapable of creating a world without evil, pain, and suffering?

That's not the right conclusion, though. You asked, "is it logically possible for God to have created a world in which all of his goals should be accomplished without evil, pain, and suffering?"

If it were possible for God to create such a world, then obviously we would live in such a world. However, we don't. So, either it is not logically possible or it is not physically possible. I believe that it is not logically possible for such a world to exist and have God's goals achieved. However, at the bare minimum, it is not physically possible that this world be without evil. Yet, it is God's will I believe that this world moves forward according to God's will.

My point is that a "purely good world" should not be physically out of reach of a god that is all-wise and all-powerful.

You mean one that accomplishes God's goals, right? Well, why should that be the case?

That god should be able to create any kind of world he/she wishes, right? If a god is all-wise and all-powerful s/he was free to create a purely good world or the one that we have now. My argument is if a god could have created a "purely good world" then that god should have done so.

Perhaps God has created such worlds, but God is not bound to create only a select few worlds. God is bound to create whatever brings about God's ultimate will, and that ultimate will is a land of goodness for all worlds that reach that destination.

If a god created this world, then the "obstacles at hand" were also his creation and if he is all-wise and all-powerful, he should have been able to create a world without such obstacles.

The obstacles at hand could be outside of God's creation. Even God's own nature presents obstacles that can't be brushed aside without bringing about a paradox.

Again, though, if a god is all-wise and all-powerful he could have created the world in such a way as to eliminate all harm, not just "as much harm as possible."

God is all-wise, and God is all-powerful (see my definition again for weak omnipotence), but this does not mean that God could have created the world without pain & suffering and still reach all of God's goals.

That doesn't seem to follow my logic at all (though it sounds similar to the argument of "The Happy Humanist"). To be similar, the U.S. Department of Education would have to be all-wise and all-powerful and, then, they would not shut down the school, but rather develop a school that was impervious to gang violence.

It does follow from your logic since you said in your first post:

3) If an all-powerful, all-wise God could create a world in which all of his goals could be perfectly accomplished without evil, pain, and suffering, and a world in which this God's goals can be perfectly accomplished without evil pain and suffering is better than a world in which God's goals are accomplished with evil, pain, and suffering, then God should have created a world in which his goals could be perfectly accomplished without evil, pain, and suffering.

So, as you said, if a world is better than the worse one should not have been created. If a school is better, then the worse one should not be operating. If the choice is that no better school could exist in South Central L.A. (given the current budget considerations), or no school at all, which is the better choice? I'm sure you agree it is better that these schools exist since good can come of it. Similarly, if God's choice is to allow this world to exist (given the current spiritual considerations), or no world at all, God choose to have our world exist since good will come of it.

...I am not talking about 'shutting this world down.' I am arguing that an all-wise, all-powerful god should have created a world impervious to evil, pain, and suffering because it was the morally right thing to do and it should be within the power of this kind of god to do.

In other words, you would like there not to be obstacles to creation. But, there are obstacles to creation. There is no choice available in not having them there in the first place. It's only a matter of patience as this current situation plays out its natural course of events.

I can't understand how, then, the problem of evil applies to you. As a "process guy" aren't you already acknowledging that god is not "all-wise" in the traditional sense of the term?

Yes and no. God is all-wise, however God merely sets the bounds for creation and, as it says in Genesis 1, God commands the earth to bring forth life. Therefore, the responsibility for the development of life has been delegated to the earth. God sets the bounds by the divine word, and the natural world follows its natural evolutionary course just so that it stays within the bounderies of God's will. This is God's use of the minimum principle, which is just another aspect of God's immense wisdom.

According to process theology, there are things that a god does not know and learns through the process. This is not what is traditionally thought of when the term all-wise is applied.

The word of God is interferring with the creation process by maintaining the bounds of God's will and re-directing the world forward in its march toward an Omega state. As the world gets closer to the Omega state, it becomes more complex (e.g., human beings, etc.), and this activates dormant thoughts of God that would only apply to complex entities with minds. As a result, God appears to be learning. However, it is not really God learning, it is God's mind becoming more aware of the world that is making contact with it. In this sense, I'm a process guy.

In that case, my problem of evil does not apply to you because you do not agree with the premise that god is all-wise unless you are defining the term differently than the traditional conception (e.g. you could say that a god is 'all-wise' in that all the wisdom that is now available belongs to this god, but more wisdom will be made available in the future [which implies that your god is not atemporal] and your god will gain that too and will be always all-wise). There is no logical contradiction in that formulation and that kind of god could exist (though I find it highly doubtful).

God is all-wise since God's entire mind sees the entire timeline as a whole. God determines the structure of that timeline. This is the state of being that God enjoys. However, while in the timeline (as we experience time), this is an interaction with God's word (or Logos).

The "questions" aren't questions that arise out of curiosity (e.g., "hmm... what if I poke that lizard with a pin..."), they are questions that must be answered to avert paradox. These worlds are needed when the mere theory of our world won't provide a proof of a theorem, it requires it to exist.

Can you flesh this out a little more?

We have to go back to the beginning of everything to understand anything, I think. If we go back before the universe, all the way back to the first cause, the question naturally arises, what caused causation. The answer, nothing caused causation, the question itself assumes causation just to ask the question. The next question is, what is causation. It is a concept deeply related to truth and logic. If we look to Alfred Tarski, we hypothesize that truth involves the notion of satisfaction. That is, "snow is white" if snow satisfies being white. The relation satisfaction is a semantic term, but it also requires a mind to grasp and understand that truth has been satisfied. So, there is another term we can add to this deep relationship that existed at the very beginning, causation, truth, logic, and mind. This mind acts as a omniscient interpreter that confirms truth. It is interested in knowing all that is true. The propositions that are true are all the logical statements, all the mathematical statements, and all the advanced statements that satisfy the notion of all that is truth. At some point, I believe, structures or universes are needed to further gauge what those truths are for certain propositions (or collection of propositions), and therefore the omniscient interpreter became not just an interpreter, but a creator of worlds. The world in which we find ourselves is a time-dependent world, hence we don't see the interpreter directly, the interpreter is outside of time. However, we see the logic that our world is composed of, and as we advance these logical structures become active. So, physically speaking, our laws of physics became more complex because more logical structures started to interact with our world as it evolved. Eventually the world reached a state of biological evolution, and more logical structures became active, and now here we are today moving slowly but surely toward the Omega state by the actions of the Logos. Once the universe reaches its end, the universe will be evaluated for its truth (judgement day), and some structures will be found to be just what God is looking for, others may not. The structures that are found to be true, will be added to the database. Perhaps this will go on for infinity (why not, there's probably an infinite amount of truth out there that needs to be proved or shown to be false).

That's the world in which we live in.