God cannot be all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing

[otseng]

It's getting kinda quiet from all the atheists, so I'm going to help it along.

Here's one argument I've heard from atheists on why God doesn't exist.

Christians acknowledge that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. But there exists many problems in the world today. And many quite serious problems. If God is all-knowing and sees all these problems and all-loving and doesn't want these problems to exist, then it's not all-powerful since it allows the problems to exist.

Or if it knows all these problems and is all-powerful, then it is not all-loving since the problems exist.

Therefore God cannot be all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing. Consequently, God cannot exist.

[Xanadu Moo]

If man is able to FULLY comprehend all that God does and is.......wouldn't that make man equal to God?

That's a reasonable contention, SpinyNorman. Very good point. I'd like to see rebuttals to that statement.

The assumptions made by those dismissing the possibility of a God due to his omni- qualities:
1) That we can even begin to comprehend infinite qualities.
2) That when God doesn't do something, that he must be incapable of doing it.
3) That such a God would prevent evil.
4) That death is bad.
5) That suffering is necessarily a direct result of personal sin.
6) That God would raise us differently than we would raise our children. Do we shelter them from all outside influences or do we allow them to make mistakes? No, we keep them in a bubble so that they never get a scratch on them. They never need to experience anything. What's important is that they go through life completely unscathed.
7) That God doesn't already intervene on a regular basis.
8) That God should be accountable for what we do.
9) That time (or absense thereof) is understood by humans.
10) That we can withstand God's presence in our evil state.
11) That the laws of justice and obedience are inferior to laws of "anything goes," and that God would have any valid reason to subvert the laws of justice and obedience.
12) That semantic paradoxes tell us anything about the rationality of a simultaneous omniscient and omnipotent being.

Gosh, that's a lot of assumptions with which to rest an argument on. I would take a step back and admit the uncertainty here if I were some of you.

There's a lot of mischaracterization here about the general teachings of Christianity, and it's making many of your arguments come across as disingenuous, or simply uninformed.

By the way, I like John Prine's "Ain't Hurtin' Nobody." Classic slice of Americana.

[bernee51]

If man is able to FULLY comprehend all that God does and is.......wouldn't that make man equal to God?

That's a reasonable contention, SpinyNorman. Very good point. I'd like to see rebuttals to that statement.

Too easy...according to his own 'words' god made man in his own image.

The assumptions made by those dismissing the possibility of a God due to his omni- qualities:
1) That we can even begin to comprehend infinite qualities.

Have you ever meditated?

2) That when God doesn't do something, that he must be incapable of doing it.
3) That such a God would prevent evil.

Epicurus said it best.

4) That death is bad.

is it? or isn't it? I thought it just was.

5) That suffering is necessarily a direct result of personal sin.

No - suffering is cused by 'hunger'

6) That God would raise us differently than we would raise our children. Do we shelter them from all outside influences or do we allow them to make mistakes? No, we keep them in a bubble so that they never get a scratch on them. They never need to experience anything. What's important is that they go through life completely unscathed.]

Actually I raised muy childern in th real world - one where thre a real risks. To do otherwise would be bad parenting.

7) That God doesn't already intervene on a regular basis.

Yet to see any evidence that he does.

8) That God should be accountable for what we do.

I take full responsibility for my life...even to contemplate that someone would die for my sins is the height of immorality.

9) That time (or absense thereof) is understood by humans.

Que?

10) That we can withstand God's presence in our evil state.

There are no good or evil beings, only actions which may be considered as such.

11) That the laws of justice and obedience are inferior to laws of "anything goes," and that God would have any valid reason to subvert the laws of justice and obedience.

How can 'anything goes' be considered a law?

12) That semantic paradoxes tell us anything about the rationality of a simultaneous omniscient and omnipotent being.

Do you know any married batchelors?

[keltzkroz]

Do you know any married batchelors?

But I do know that God in Christianity is 1 = 3 and 3 = 1 (okay, I oversimplified).

[bernee51]

Do you know any married batchelors?

But I do know that God in Christianity is 1 = 3 and 3 = 1 (okay, I oversimplified).

Ho hum...hasn't the trinity thing been done to death.

The only justification for the trinity is the bible. The bible is a book of myth, self-contradictory, littered with absurdies and, in places, iimmoral. The trinity is not a fact it is a theory based on spurious evidence.

Do you know any married batchelors?

1, however, does equal 3.

And 10 = 9, 100 = 27, 1001 = 84

I'm not sure though that 3 = 1.

[spetey]

Hey folks,

Free of other threads, I thought I'd chime in a bit. It's easy on this topic to be distracted by free will, and how much we sinful mortals deserve all the misery laid upon us. But what about, for example, the tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands, including many innocent children? God surely could have prevented that. Why didn't God? Did those children deserve horrific death by drowning?

To defend God in the face of evil is to show that every scrap of evil is necessary. Of course one can always say "we don't understand God's great and wise ways in torturing those children; we just must have faith that it's all part of God's great plan." But this response is cheating. Appeals to faith are a way to say "I'm going to continue to believe despite being unable to present reasons for my view", and that's both irresponsible and downright dangerous. (If you disagree, please defend faith appeals on this thread instead.)


spetey