We can question if this is fair — Count Timothy von Icarus

You’ve stated the refutation I wanted to state. If God is being unjust he’s not worthy of worship.

but we have to bear in mind that time is perhaps a meaningless concept to apply to a transcendent God. Perfect memory means that the past is perfectly accessible to God, able to be experienced as fully as the present. Perfect knowledge means the future, or perhaps knowledge of infinite possible futures, is also as accessible to It as the present. Thus, God exists outside the conventional boundaries of time, in which case temporal cause and effect can't be understood the way we understand it conventionally. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes they can. Because an omnipotent God could make it so that he can tell past present and future. He didn’t do so, and is now punishing people for things they haven’t done. Not very benevolent.

And if God really does know the entirety of the future, why doesn’t he ensure no suffering occurs?

This logic holds if one assumes the unit of analysis for guilt is the individual, not the people. However, in the doctrine of Original Sin, mankind as a whole is condemned for the actions of their progenitors, Adam and Eve. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which is idiotic.

We use the collective as a unit for assigning guilt fairly often. Corporations are punished as a whole for bad acts. The German people were to pay reparations to the Jews as a whole for their collective, not individual actions. Arguments in favor of reparations for American slavery often also invoke a similar idea of collective and inherited guilt. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We do this because we need these reparations. The corporation or country hurt someone, and now they need that money to rebuild but there is no set group of individuals to blame. And always the problem is resolved after said reparations are provided (ideally).

God doesn’t gain anything from this punishment, it’s senseless. And it’s never ending. He chooses when it ends arbitrarily.

It’s akin to owning a chocolate factory, then telling 2 kids not to eat any chocolate, and when they eat a single chocolate bar (one you can reproduce effortlessly), you imprison them and all their children, with no chance of actually ever repenting for the “terrible evil” they committed. All the while you don’t specify when the imprisonment ends and choose to end it when you get bored.

Or, if you posit the God of the pietist tradition — Count Timothy von Icarus

But that’s very unlike what we’re talking about.

or for cosmologies where an evil god of equal, or almost equal power to a good one, struggles for control of reality (Manichean cosmology, Zoroastrian, etc.). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, not what Bart is saying.

There are ways to make God (not Abrahamic) work, Bart’s isn’t one of them.

"To God, all things are right and good, only to man somethings are and somethings are not." Heraclitus
"There is no such thing as right or wrong, but only thinking makes them so." Shakespeare."

All meaning is a biological readout of one's experience of ultimate reality, providing us with, an apparent reality. Apparent reality is then biological re-action, as consciousness itself is biological re-action.

If you define any of the omni terms as "Being able to do anything without limits, even the impossible", then an omniscient, omnipowerful, and omnibenevolent being would be able to do anything, even contradictions. — Wirius

Yes, that is I think the only reasonable way to understand what omnipotence involves. Here is an argument for that: to be all powerful is to be more powerful than anyone else. A being who can do anything is more powerful than one who can do some things and not others. Thus, an omnipotent being can do anything. — Bartricks

Just because God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, this doesn't mean he is inferior to superior God, contradictory to itself or that his omnipotence is limited only to doing good.

Such thinking is a fallacy already in the start, any conclusions based on such premise can be refuted.

This logic holds if one assumes the unit of analysis for guilt is the individual, not the people. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You quoted Job from bible, and based on that found logic that an individual is to be blamed rather than whole society (people).
While this is true, it's false to say that either only an individual or only people are to be blamed.

The truth is however that both apply, an individual and people, this are 2 separate and necessary guilts (or judgements)

"There is no such thing as right or wrong, but only thinking makes them so." Shakespeare." — boagie

Therefore if child molesters which are currently in prison think they did right we should let them go out?
Or maybe we should just keep them imprisoned and claim they are right but also dangerous?
Imagine a judge having such criteria of what's right and what's wrong.

omnipotent: "The most powerful a being can be."
omniscient: "The most knowledgeable and aware a being can be."
omnibenevolent: "The most good a being can be."

Basically, God might be the best in what is possible, but God is limited by what is possible. — Wirius

God could fulfill all three. Imagine a sadist who takes pleasure in torturing others. God does not prevent it, because free will. Nevertheless, God could simply play him a world in which all others are only avatars.

I'm rather surprised that people who complain about the problem of evil simultaneously maintain that justice is a critical aspect of morality. If they do subscribe to the latter then the possibility of evil being actually justice can't be so easily ruled out or dismissed out of hand.

What about hell? I've been a regular on the forum for the past 6 or so years and the problem of hell is a rare topic. I suppose people, deep down, realize that hell is simply bad people getting their just deserts.

Like the PoE, the PoH is only a "problem" for the notion of an omnibenevolent deity. "Hell", btw, is just imaginary revenge-porn sadism, nothing more. :halo: Again, justice =/= evil, Fool.

Like the PoE, the PoH is only a "problem" for the notion of an omnibenevolent deity. "Hell", btw, is just imaginary revenge-porn sadism, nothing more. :halo: Again, justice =/= evil, Fool. — 180 Proof

A little thought experiment for you to consider:

Say it's in the 1800s. You're riding from your small town to another settlement and along the way you come across a man dangling from a tree with a noose around his neck - he's dead of course. Can you tell just from what you see - a man hanged to death - whether it's murder (evi) or it's a judicial execution (justice)?

God could fulfill all three....
omnipotent.... omnibenevolent — SolarWind

"Could"? Must, it seems to me. And just the two omnis: all-good is irreconcilable with all-powerful. It's the problem of the "all." And if not all, then not God. No conception of such a God is even a little bit coherent; that is, zero coherence, zero possibility of coherence.

And it would seem that the same problems exist for the omnis taken severally. Omnipotent? There's the problem of the heavy stone at least. Omniscient? Knowing everything? Omnibenevolent? The good for the fox v. the good for the chicken?

For the idea of the Christian God, all this was worked out by very smart people a long time ago. They said, "We believe...".

Can you tell just from what you see — TheMadFool

And what would that matter absent a complete specification? It would just be "looks like" at best, and the sensible man would leave it at that. He'd be a Pyrrhonist and simply acknowledge the reality of the appearance of the hanged man.

Say it's in the 1800s. You're riding from your small town to another settlement and along the way you come across a man dangling from a tree with a noose around his neck - he's dead of course. Can you tell just from what you see - a man hanged to death - whether it's murder (evi) or it's a judicial execution (justice)? — TheMadFool

If it’s an infant and not a man, I know it’s evil.

There have been infants tortured to death before.

Ergo problem of evil (among many other sources of evil)

Also God would never need to enforce this justice. Justice is a punishment you inflict on someone for hurting you or someone else. You can’t hurt God, so he’s not the grieving party. And God could’ve removed every instance of someone hurting someone else, and chose not to do so. So in both cases, (whether the punishment is justified by you supposedly hurting God or someone else), God is being evil.

If it’s an infant and not a man, I know it’s evil.

There have been infants tortured to death before.

Ergo problem of evil (among many other sources of evil)

Also God would never need to enforce this justice. Justice is a punishment you inflict on someone for hurting you or someone else. You can’t hurt God, so he’s not the grieving party. And God could’ve removed every instance of someone hurting someone else, and chose not to do so. So in both cases, (whether the punishment is justified by you supposedly hurting God or someone else), God is being evil — khaled

I think you're missing an important piece in the puzzle - free will.

I can tell it's a corpse left to rot in the open. Probably a suicide. :mask:

I think you're missing an important piece in the puzzle - free will. — TheMadFool

What exactly do you mean. Free will fits into this a 100 different ways.

I can tell it's a corpse left to rot in the open. Probably a suicide. :mask: — 180 Proof

:rofl: I always fail to convince you!

What exactly do you mean. Free will fits into this a 100 different ways. — khaled

How? God can't be evil if the evil is our doing.

He could’ve made it physically near impossible or impossible to perform evil acts (indestructible bodies for instance). Why didn’t he do so? It wouldn’t be infringing on our free will any more than limiting us from levitating at will is an infringement on free will.

He already decides what we can and can’t do arbitrarily (can’t fly, but can reason, but not very strong, but very persistent in a chase, etc) and we don’t think these qualities or lacks are infringements on free will. Why didn’t he make it physically impossible for us to do evil?

He could’ve made it physically near impossible or impossible to perform evil acts ... Why didn’t [God] do so? It wouldn’t be infringing on our free will any more than limiting us from levitating at will is an infringement on free will. — khaled

:100: :fire: ... Man might be to blame for his evil acts, but "God" is responsible for making it possible to commit evil acts; ergo, "God" is not omnibenevolent, or worthy of worship.

He could’ve made it physically near impossible or impossible to perform evil acts (indestructible bodies for instance). Why didn’t he do so? It wouldn’t be infringing on our free will any more than limiting us from levitating at will is an infringement on free will. — khaled

Free will requires evil, ergo pain & suffering, to be possible. You can't talk about free will without conceding pain, suffering should be part of the overall scheme. So, when you assert that God could've taken suffering out of the equation, what you actually mean is we shouldn't have free will. Evil is a key component of free will, morally speaking. Choice is central to the free will question.

Man might be to blame for his evil acts, but "God" is responsible for making it possible to commit evil acts; ergo, "God" is not omnibenevolent, or worthy of worship. — 180 Proof

Choice!

And what would that matter absent a complete specification? It would just be "looks like" at best, and the sensible man would leave it at that. He'd be a Pyrrhonist and simply acknowledge the reality of the appearance of the hanged man. — tim wood

As a Pyrrhonist, I should suspend judgment on whether the man hanging from the tree indicates evil/justice. Skepticism is, at the end of the day, awareness of possibilities.

???

Man might be to blame for his evil acts, but "God" is responsible for making it possible to commit evil acts; ergo, "God" is not omnibenevolent, or worthy of worship. — 180 Proof

God wanted to give us our freedom and that it seems has unfortunate consequences viz. evil.

If "deus vult", then he intends the "unfortunate consequences" too.

So, "deus vult", he intends the "unfortunate consequences" too. — 180 Proof

But only so that we're truly free. That's the whole point.

We cannot walk through brick walls, yet we exercise "free will". Explain why we could not exercise "free will" if we also could not commit evil acts.

We cannot walk through brick walls, yet we exercise "free will". Explain why we could not exercise "free will" if we also could not commit evil acts. — 180 Proof

Think of evil as maximizing options. Sure, God made it impossible to walk through brick walls but at the very least, making us capable of evil, He expanded our choices.

Interesting point though! Would being able to walk through walls be a good thing or a bad thing, morally that is? :chin:

Free will requires evil, ergo pain & suffering, to be possible. You can't talk about free will without conceding pain, suffering should be part of the overall scheme. So, when you assert that God could've taken suffering out of the equation, what you actually mean is we shouldn't have free will. — TheMadFool

Substantiate this claim. And besides, I didn't say anything about suffering. I said "Why did God make it so that we can commit evil acts" not "Why did God make it so that we experience pain", those are very different.

This sounds exactly like "Free will requires the ability to levitate at will". No it doesn't.

Free will doesn't require that you possess certain abilities. There are disease where the individual cannot feel pain. Does that individual thereby possess no free will (assuming the rest of us do)? Psychopaths cannot empathize nor have a sense of morality, do they thereby not have free will?

But only so that we're truly free. That's the whole point. — TheMadFool

We aren't "truly free" given we can't levitate at will either by this logic. But we have free will. Ergo, not having certain abilities does not limit free will. Ergo, God could could have made it so that we cannot commit evil acts without infringing on our free will. Just like he made it so we can't fly without technology without infringing on our free will.

Choice is central to the free will question. — TheMadFool

Agreed. But God clearly has no problem limiting our choices. So instead of limiting us from levitating at will, and allowing us to commit evil, why didn't he do the opposite?

Think of evil as maximizing options. Sure, God made it impossible to walk through brick walls but at the very least, making us capable of evil, He expanded our choices. — TheMadFool

But that's arbitrary. Why did he give us the option to commit evil, but not the option to levitate at will. Giving us the option to levitate at will would also expand our choices. Why does he choose to expand our choices by making evil possible specifically? He could also have expanded them by allowing us to change shape, or to fly through space, or walk through walls. He chose to limit us in certain ways and to allow us to do certain things. Why is one of the things he allowed to do committing evil evil instead of, say, flying but with no ability to commit evil?

Perhaps this is more to your taste:

The more i look at the universe, just the less convinced i am that something benevolent is going on — Neil deGrasse Tyson

I said "Why did God make it so that we can commit evil acts" not "Why did God make it so that we experience pain", those are very different. — khaled

Sans pain, evil is meaningless.

We aren't "truly free" given we can't levitate at will either by this logic. — khaled

Good point but explain to us how levitation can be moral/immoral? God, remember, is only concerned with moral responsibility. Perhaps there's nothing good/bad about being able to levitate or walk through walls.

Sans pain, evil is meaningless. — TheMadFool

Sure. But pain =/= evil. That's the distinction I was pointing out.

Good point but explain to us how levitation can be moral/immoral? God, remember, is only concerned with moral responsibility. Perhaps there's nothing good/bad about being able to levitate or walk through walls. — TheMadFool

What does "God is only concerned by moral responsibility" mean?

There are plenty of things that are neither good nor bad that we can do and others we can't do. Lifting my arm is not good or bad. Neither is walking through walls. So why don't we have both abilities? Or why do we not lack both abilities? Why one and not the other?

If you're implying that we can't fly because there is nothing good/bad about flying, that makes no sense. There is nothing good/bad about raising my arm either but I can do that.

What are you getting at and how does this address anything I've said?

We aren't "truly free" given we can't levitate at will either by this logic. But we have free will. Ergo, not having certain abilities does not limit free will. Ergo, God could could have made it so that we cannot commit evil acts without infringing on our free will. Just like he made it so we can't fly without technology without infringing on our free will. — khaled

:point: