The Problem with the Problem of Evil

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
williamryan
Apprentice
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:18 pm

The Problem with the Problem of Evil

Post #1

Post by williamryan »

I'm new to this site. I've surfed around a bit on this topic, and I've constantly run into incantations of the problem of evil. I've seen Juliod, among others, use it over and over. I hope this thread will isolate the real issues of contention and shed some light on this often misused and abused argument. I have learned much from William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga's writings on this matter, and much of what I say is from their writings.

There are two basic versions of the problem of evil: deductive and probalistic (aka inductive). The propontent of the deductive problem of evil attempts to show that the existence of Deductive looks like this:

1. If a God exists who is omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all loving),
2. and evil exists,
3. then God cannot be omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

This version of the argument has been almost completely abandoned by professional philosophers today. It lives on in its popular level form and is made immortal by producing this corpse of an argument between non-philosopher friends. Alvin Plantinga (a preeminent Christian philosopher at Notre Dame and past president of the Amer. Philosophical Assoc., which is the main association of professional philosophers) showed that this version of the problem of evil is logically untenable.

Alvin Plantinga presented a "defense" as opposed to a theodicy. A theodicy is an effort to explain why God would allow evil to exist. A defense, however, merely seeks to show that the atheist has failed to carry their case that evil is incompatible with God's existence. In other words, a sucessful defense with show that the atheist has failed to show that evil is logically incompatible with God's existence, while leaving us in the dark as to why God allows evil.

The deductive argument was destroyed because, in short, the atheist has assumed an overwhelming burden. Premises (1) and (2), above, are at not explicitly, logically inconsistent. An explicit, logically inconsistent statement would be that "God is blue, but God is not blue."

If the atheist thinks that premises (1) and (2) are implicitly inconsistent, then he or she must be assuming some hidden premise(s) that would make the inconsistency explicit. Those premises seem to be these:

(3) If God is omnipotent, then God can create any world that God desires.
(4) If God is omnibenevolent, then God prefers a world without evil over a world with evil.

Hidden premise (3) then is the view that if God is omnipotent, he could create a world that were all humans freely choose to do the right thing. This world would then be free of all moral evil: no lying, no cheating, no murder etc. So, because we can conceive of a world in which everyone freely chooses every time to do the right thing, and God is all-powerful, then God must be able to create it.

This links with hidden premise (4) because if God was powerful enough to create this type of world, then he certaintly would because he is all-loving. In other words, if God had the choice between creating a flawed, evil world like this one and creating one w/o any evil, then God would most certainly chose the latter. Otherwise, God would be evil to prefer that people experience pain and suffering when God could have given them happiness and prosperity.

In David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, he summarized this last point when he asked: "Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"

Plantinga and others object to hidden premise (3) with what he calls the free will defense. It goes like this: if it is possible that humans have complete freedom to make choices, then (3) and (4) are not necessarily true. If humans have freedom to make choices, then it is not necessarily true that God could have created another world in which no evil exists but people have complete freedom of choice. This is because God's omnipotence doesn't imply that God can do logical impossibilities like create a round triangle or make a married bachelor, or make someone freely chose to do something.

All God can really do is create a world in which a person may freely chose to act and then allow that person to make the free choice. This implies that there are possible worlds that are not feasible for God to create. Just like its not "feasible" for God to create a round triangle or a married bachelor. This does not impinge on God's omnipotence though, because God cannot be impinged for not being able to do a logical impossibility. Another example how how non-sensical this is, is for someone to say that God is not all-powerful because he cannot exist and non exist at the same time.

So, suppose that in every feasible world that God could create, free creatures sometimes choice evil. Here it is us, the creature, not God that is responsible for evil and God can do nothing to prevent their ability to choose the evil, apart from refusing to create such a world at all. Therefore it is at least possible that feasible world that God could create that contains free human beings is a world that has evil in it.

I'm about to say something that will seem crazy and you might be tempted to label be a total fundamentalist and crazy, but please keep reading past the next few sentences. As for natural evils (i.e. earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.) it is possible that these evils could result from demonic activity. Demons could have freedom just like humans and it is possible that God could not preclude natural evil w/o removing demons' free will. You might be thinking, "That is ridiculous!" and you might even think that it is a spurious, frivolous argument. But only let this thought last a few moments lest you confuse the deductive argument with the probabilistic arguments. I admit, ascribing all evil to demonic beings is improbable, but that is completely irrevelant to the deductive version of this argument. Probability only enters the calculus in the probalistic argument. All I must do here is show that such an explanation (both for the moral evil and natural evil) is merely possible.

In summary, hidden premise (3), that an omnipotent God can create any world he desires, is plainly not necessarily true. Therefore, the atheist's argument on this ground alone fails, which causes the whole argument to fail. But we can go further, what about hidden premise (4).

What about (4), the hidden premise that if God is all-loving then he would prefer a world w/o evil over a world with evil. Again, this is not necessarily true. By analogy, we allow pain and suffering to exist in a person's life to bring about some greater good. Every parent knows this. There comes a time when parents cannot protect their child from every mishap, or when the parent must discipline the child so the child matures. Similarly, God could permit suffering in our lives to build us or test us or others and to achieve some greater good. Therefore, premise (4) is also not necessarily true. And again the argument fails, this time on totally separate grounds. Notice that the atheist must show that both (3) and (4) are true, while the theist merely need show one is false.

If I may be permitted to read some of your minds, at this point you might be thinking, "Even if there is no inconsistency between God and evil, surely the existence of God is incompatible with the amount and kinds of evils that actually exist." What good, you might ask, could possibly come from a pregnant mother in the wrong part of town that is struck down by a stray bullet fired from a gang member's 9mm?

This as its own hidden premise, that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons to allow the amount and kinds of evil that exist. But again, this is not necessarily true, and all I must show is that it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason. As terrible as some things about the world are, people generally agree that life is worth living, from which we could surmise that there is much more good that evil in the world, regardless of the amount and kind of evil actually present. As for the kinds of evil, it is possible that God has some overriding reasons to permit the kinds of evil that occur.

Again, you might think that that seems pretty unlikely. But this would confuse the deductive problem with the probabilistic problem again. To refute the deductive version, the theist doesn't have to suggest a likely solution--all he or she must do is suggest a possible solution.

In summary, the atheist assumes at least two hidden premises in the deductive version of this argument. He or she must prove both of those premises for this version to be true. I have shown that both of those hidden premises can be indenpendently refuted.

Further, because it is the atheist who claims to note a contradicition w/in the theist's truth claims, it is the atheist that bears the burden of proof to show that there is no possible world in which premises (1) and (2) are true. That is an incredibly heavy burden, which the atheist ultimately cannot shoulder. The deductive version of the problem of evil is impotent.


Probabilistic Version

After the deductive argument was destroyed, most who want to use the problem of evil (POE) to show that God cannot be all loving or all powerful moved to the probabilistic argument. The inductive version admits that it is possible for the traditional God of Christianity and evil to coexist, but it is highly improbable for them to coexist. The argument looks like this:

1. If a god exists who is all loving and all powerful,
2. yet evil exists,
3. then it is highly improbable or unlikely that a god exists who is all loving or all powerful.

Let me make a few observations. Notice that even if the Christian granted this argument, this argument does not show that God does not exist. It is, however, a step along that path. At most, this argument can claim that the type of God posited by traditional Christianity does not exist. Further, this argument cannot show that God is not all loving and not all powerful; it can only show that one of this is incorrect. But this is all only the case if we grant this argument, and there are powerful reasons not to grant it.[/u]

Given that this post is way too long already, I'll be brief here, and will flesh out my comments on this version as other posts come in (if anybody actually gets this far into the novel :)

(1) Given the full scope of the evidence for God's existence, it is far more likely than not that God exists.

(2) Because of our finite nature, we are not in a good position to asses with a sufficient confidence that God has no morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evils that occur.

(3) Christianity entails doctrines that increase the probability that God and evil coexist

I look forward to your comments.

User avatar
Melis
Apprentice
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Europe

Post #71

Post by Melis »

harvey1 wrote:
Melis wrote:Again, this is not the case. Equivalence of matter and energy is not violated, so if you claim the opposite, you are directly denying the science of Mr. Einstein and others.
Quantum theory and relativity theory are well known to be theories that are in conflict in certain areas. I believe that Einstein argued against Bohr about non-local interactions within quantum theory as being violations of special relativity, but Aspect experiments et al. are showing that Bohr was correct. In any case, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows for the existence of virtual particles. Measured effects of these virtual particles such as the Casimir effect have been shown to reliably account for their presence.
Melis wrote:Well, it is what you believe, and everyone is free to have his beliefs.
Of course, but my point is that this is an example of how God can be omnipotent within the context of the laws of physics.
Melis wrote:Again, the laws are not material, but they tend to describe what is material and pertain ONLY to material and not to the spiritual. So they do not affect god unless he is material (which comprises matter+energy).
You can't say they do not affect God. Many of the laws appear to follow from certain logical implications, and for God to violate a logical implication would undermine logic. For example, a logical implication of time travel is that one could travel in the past and prevent their parents from meeting. If God allowed time travel and even made it possible, then surely this experiment of preventing the future from occurring would be tried. What is the logical implication of an event that must occur and did occur from not occurring? It implies there is no logic and that there is irrationality to the Universe. We cannot say if this affects God. Perhaps God's existence depends on the fact that the world is a logical place, or at least logical in some important ways.
Melis wrote:
Laws of physics are any and all laws that affect the physical world.
Now you're saying the same thing I said, yet you have disagreed a few sentences above.
By physical world I am not just referring to our universe, but all of creation. If irrationality exists in creation, then it might be a violation of God's existence.
Melis wrote:We can do much more than only speculate what the real laws are like. The scientists use the scientific method. They make theories, experiments and observations. If the observations and theory agree, it is a good chance that the theory works.
If we were only speculating, we couldn't have traveled to space, use cell phones, even debating on this forum, etc.
Of course we aren't speculating on what the laws do or allow us to do, but we are speculating on what the laws are really like. It's possible that we are in the infancy of understanding the laws of nature. It's also possible that we are nearing the end of understanding the laws. The point is that we can only speculate what the final TOE is going to look like. It might be nothing like the current notions of string theory. That's not to say these are speculations--we can agree that they are approximations to whatever the final TOE is to look like.
Melis wrote:Also, the same laws of physics are very likely to be valid in every place in this universe we observe, otherwise one would be faced with many complications. So it is highly improbable that some ETs would know how to turn a man into a frog, since it is physically impossible.
It is physically impossible for us, but it may not be physically impossible for an ETI. They might have knowledge about quantum physics that we cannot even comprehend. Arthur C. Clarke once said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
It could be one of the two things:

a) you don't understand the current mainstream physics
b) you know more than the current mainstream physics - in this case I'd kindly invite you to share your wisdom with the rest of the world

I know, I've been sarcastic again (sorry), but I see no point in responding to your incorrect posts over and over again - if you are interested in physics, there are lot of good sites on the Internet and also a lot of good books.

You know, the physics is not the bible, so you could see it as a metaphor, analogy, copyist error, etc. It tends to be as precise as possible.

If you feel the need that your post must be the last, so be it, but you're wrong and that won't change should you repeat it 2 or 10 000 times - and I've already explained why.
Last edited by Melis on Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Happy Humanist
Site Supporter
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:05 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Post #72

Post by The Happy Humanist »

harvey1 wrote:
Melis wrote:Then he couldn't have been the creator. The laws of physics doesn't allow to create something out of nothing, and many more things god supposedly has done according to the bible.
Actually, the laws of physics do allow creation from nothing. In fact, quantum theory would not work without the creation and annihilation of particles all around us. Many quantum cosmologists (e.g., Vilenkin) are proposing that the universe came to exist out of nothing.
Harvey1, you're sounding more and more like an atheist every day. What did I say? Ten years? You've got nine and a half left to fulfill my "prophecy"! O:)

Oh, yeah, I'm back. Still checking out this thread, and I will have some input...just making sure I don't go over already-trod territory.
Jim, the Happy Humanist!
===
Any sufficiently advanced worldview will be indistinguishable from sheer arrogance --The Happy Humanist (with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #73

Post by harvey1 »

Melis wrote:
In any case, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows for the existence of virtual particles. Measured effects of these virtual particles such as the Casimir effect have been shown to reliably account for their presence.
It could be one of the two things:

a) you don't understand the current mainstream physics
b) you know more than the current mainstream physics - in this case I'd kindly invite you to share your wisdom with the rest of the world

I know, I've been sarcastic again (sorry), but I see no point in responding to your incorrect posts over and over again - if you are interested in physics, there are lot of good sites on the Internet and also a lot of good books.
I'm not sure why you are disputing the existence of virtual particles or the Casimir effect. In any case, since this is a debating forum where I should offer evidence of my claim, I'll do so here:
Virtual particles are particles which flash into and out of existence spontaneously. They are allowed to "borrow" rest energy via the uncertainty principle but only for a short time . The Casimir effect is an attraction between two plates in a vacuum caused by virtual particles.
It's too bad that you've come here and chosen to violate the rules of civil conduct. I think it's unfortunate since we could have enjoyable discussions.
Melis wrote:You know, the physics is not the bible, so you could see it as a metaphor, analogy, copyist error, etc. It tends to be as precise as possible. If you feel the need that your post must be the last, so be it, but you're wrong and that won't change should you repeat it 2 or 10 000 times - and I've already explained why.
You haven't given a very good argument, in fact I quoted a pretty decent on-line source to suggest that you are wrong. Also, by arguing that since we can't say which laws we are missing, therefore we can assume that we have the complete laws of physics is arguing based on the Argumentum ad Ignorantian fallacy.
Last edited by harvey1 on Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart

User avatar
The Happy Humanist
Site Supporter
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:05 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Post #74

Post by The Happy Humanist »

otseng wrote:
McCulloch wrote:
juliod wrote:If god is limited by our ordinary laws of logic and reality, then he is not omnipotent.
Here many theists disagree. Omnipotence as you define it is a straw man argument. Your argument has not disproven the possibility of the existence of a supernatural being that can do all that is logically possible.
Whew. I'm glad an atheist can agree here that this is a straw man argument. Again juliod, it seems like you're the only here that is defining omnipotent as being able to do what is illogical. And I think we can all agree that such a god does not exist.
After much consideration, I'm afraid I must reluctantly side with the theists on this one, for the following reason: It is possible to conceive of a universe created by a creator-being, not necessarily this one, who has ultimate power over that universe, except that he is constrained by the principles with which he created it. It is axiomatic that such a being would be constrained by logic; if not, there is no point to debating his existence, and this entire board is a waste of energy. Such a being would be no less god-like for those constraints. He would still be the Creator, and would still be the most powerful force in that existence. For all intents and purposes, he would still be "God," and no less so because some smart-alecky creation of his could construct impossible-sounding word-games. It is for this reason I long-ago abandoned the "big rock" argument as being rather silly.

Perhaps what is needed is a new term to replace "omni" with one that implies ultimate power, without the self-contradictory baggage. Perhaps "ultipotent"?
Jim, the Happy Humanist!
===
Any sufficiently advanced worldview will be indistinguishable from sheer arrogance --The Happy Humanist (with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #75

Post by harvey1 »

The Happy Humanist wrote:Harvey1, you're sounding more and more like an atheist every day. What did I say? Ten years? You've got nine and a half left to fulfill my "prophecy"!
Yeah, I'm eager to throw off rational thinking and become an atheist...

Good to see you visit. Does the possibility of North Korea launching a nuke at the U.S. got you thinking about religion?
People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart

williamryan
Apprentice
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:18 pm

Post #76

Post by williamryan »

Lotan

Lotan wrote:
williamryan wrote:
Lotan, for purposes of this thread, we're assuming that evil and good are not a subjective constructs of the human mind.

Then this thread is in the wrong forum. The "Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma" forum was created specifically for this sort of nonsense.

MODERATORS - Can we move this thread to TDD since, according to williamryan, reality is inadmissable as evidence?

Also, Mr. Ryan, should you decide to paraphrase me in the future, please don't. I wrote...

tselem wrote:
If there is no such thing as evil, then the "problem of evil" ceases to exist. Lotan wrote:
It never existed in the first place. It is a human conception, like the idea of evil itself.



By "It" I was clearly referring to the "problem of evil" that tselem mentioned, not "(evil)" as in your edited version of my quote.
First, I'm sorry that I "misquoted you". Thank you for correcting me.

Second, its unfortunate that you're getting uncivil and hostile. I have enjoyed most people's input in this forum. But your imput adds nothing to the discussion. Statements saying that I'm ignoring reality are imature and not made in good faith.

Third, perhaps you'd like to offer some arguments instead of merely conclusions and ad hoc attacks on people's argumentative powers and thinking processes.

User avatar
Melis
Apprentice
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Europe

Post #77

Post by Melis »

harvey1 wrote:
Melis wrote:
In any case, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows for the existence of virtual particles. Measured effects of these virtual particles such as the Casimir effect have been shown to reliably account for their presence.
It could be one of the two things:

a) you don't understand the current mainstream physics
b) you know more than the current mainstream physics - in this case I'd kindly invite you to share your wisdom with the rest of the world

I know, I've been sarcastic again (sorry), but I see no point in responding to your incorrect posts over and over again - if you are interested in physics, there are lot of good sites on the Internet and also a lot of good books.
I'm not sure why you are disputing the existence of virtual particles or the Casimir effect. In any case, since this is a debating forum where I should offer evidence of my claim, I'll do so here:
Virtual particles are particles which flash into and out of existence spontaneously. They are allowed to "borrow" rest energy via the uncertainty principle but only for a short time . The Casimir effect is an attraction between two plates in a vacuum caused by virtual particles.
It's too bad that you've come here and chosen to violate the rules of civil conduct. I think it's unfortunate since we could have enjoyable discussions.
Melis wrote:You know, the physics is not the bible, so you could see it as a metaphor, analogy, copyist error, etc. It tends to be as precise as possible. If you feel the need that your post must be the last, so be it, but you're wrong and that won't change should you repeat it 2 or 10 000 times - and I've already explained why.
You haven't given a very good argument, in fact I quoted a pretty decent on-line source to suggest that you are wrong. Also, by arguing that since we can't say which laws we are missing, therefore we can assume that we have the complete laws of physics is arguing based on the Argumentum ad Ignorantian fallacy.
"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" - Thomas Gray

Well, if you insist:

1. Creation out of nothing doesn't exist - vacuum quantum fluctuations conserve the energy, which means there is NO incremental energy or matter added to the system (believe it or not)

Quantum fluctuation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

According to one formulation of the principle, energy and time can be related by the relation


That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) aren't the same as (don't commute with) the particle number operators.

Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure.


2. The science of physics does not describe supernatural - there is no law on angels, unicorns, hydras, etc.

Physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Physics (from the Greek, φυσικός (physikos), "natural", and φύσις (physis), "nature") is the science of Nature, from the quarks to the cosmos. Consequently, physics treats of the fundamental constituents of the universe, the forces they exert on one another, and the results produced by these forces. Sometimes, in modern physics, a more sophisticated approach is taken that incorporates elements of the three areas listed above; it relates to the laws of symmetry and conservation, such as those pertaining to energy, momentum, charge, and parity.[1]


Now please (I hope this sounds civil enough) - explain how:
1. physics deals with a god
2. vacuum quantum fluctuations can be responsible for the creation of the whole universe (as this is exactly what you have claimed through "many cosmologists") along with stars, planets, space dust, radiation, etc.

Casimir effect is:

Casimir effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, the Casimir effect is a physical force exerted between separate objects, which is due to neither charge, gravity, nor the exchange of particles, but instead is due to resonance of all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects. This is sometimes described in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, due to the mathematical form of one possible way of calculating the strength of the effect. Since the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance it is only measurable when the distance between the objects is extremely small. On a submicron scale this force becomes so strong, that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors.


Could you please connect this to creation out of nothing or to the god, since I can't see the obvious link, but perhaps you could find one.

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #78

Post by harvey1 »

Melis wrote:Creation out of nothing doesn't exist - vacuum quantum fluctuations conserve the energy, which means there is NO incremental energy or matter added to the system (believe it or not)
I didn't say that there was. I only claimed that there was no violation of physical laws by the creation of something out of nothing. Likewise, there may not even be a violation of laws of physics if the universe came from nothing, although this possibility is currently being considered by quantum cosmologists and inflationary theorists.
Melis wrote:The science of physics does not describe supernatural - there is no law on angels, unicorns, hydras, etc.
Again, I never said this wasn't the case. My statements are that we do not know how advanced an ETI technology might appear. However, there would be a physical theory that could explain their ability to use this technology.
Melis wrote:Now please (I hope this sounds civil enough) - explain how: 1. physics deals with a god
Physics does not address the metaphysical aspect to the Universe. However, physicists assume that there is a state space and/or laws (or behaviors) on how that state space evolves or comes to exist. These physical laws have been proposed to bring about the universe (e.g., Vilenkin's tunneling universe), and so collectively these laws are often called God because of pantheistic traditions.
Melis wrote:vacuum quantum fluctuations can be responsible for the creation of the whole universe (as this is exactly what you have claimed through "many cosmologists") along with stars, planets, space dust, radiation, etc.... Could you please connect this to creation out of nothing or to the god, since I can't see the obvious link, but perhaps you could find one.
If you have quantum laws that bring about the creation of the universe, then these laws according to pantheistic tradition is God. Of course, one could go further and say that an agent is required to "breath fire into the equations" of physics (as Hawking has suggested), but from purely a pantheistic perspective, one doesn't have to suggest a personal agent.
People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart

User avatar
juliod
Guru
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #79

Post by juliod »

It is possible to conceive of a universe created by a creator-being, not necessarily this one, who has ultimate power over that universe, except that he is constrained by the principles with which he created it.
It is equally possible to concieve of a creator that is not constrained by the principles he created. Remember, if we are just making thing up, we can imagine anything we want, including logical impossibilities.

You imagine a god that is constrained by logic. I image one that is not. My god is obviously more powerful than yours. Therefore your god isn't god at all, but some lesser being.

DanZ

theleftone

Post #80

Post by theleftone »

juliod wrote:You imagine a god that is constrained by logic. I image one that is not. My god is obviously more powerful than yours. Therefore your god isn't god at all, but some lesser being.
Why must god be necessarily unhindered by logic?

Post Reply