by AK - Jeff 1495 Replies latest jw experiences
Of course!
LOL !
On a serious note, we do have to accept that, IF a being like God exists that the only we we can relate to him is to "create" him in our image, in other words, ascribe to Him the qualitites that WE have.
That doesn't mean that a being like God would be like that, it just means that would be the only we we could relate to Him.
I suggest taking a gander at iep.utm.edu but...
A person is justified in believing that X does not exist if
(1) all the available evidence used to support the view that X exists is shown to be inadequate; and
(2) X is the sort of entity that, if X exists, then there is a presumption that would be evidence adequate to support the view that X exists; and
(3) this presumption has not been defeated although serious efforts have been made to do so; and
(4) the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined; and
(5) there are no acceptable beneficial reasons to believe that X exists
This idea was proposed by Martin concerning the existence of God.
And sort of a long excerpt from an article on the Logical Problem of Evil.
Mackie and McCloskey can be understood as claiming that it is impossible for all of the following statements to be true at the same time:
(1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful).
(2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing).
(3) God is perfectly good.
(4) Evil exists.
Any two or three of them might be true at the same time; but there is no way that all of them could be true. In other words, (1) through (4) form a logically inconsistent set. What does it mean to say that something is logically inconsistent?
(5) A set of statements is logically inconsistent if and only if: (a) that set includes a direct contradiction of the form “p & not-p”; or (b) a direct contradiction can be deduced from that set.
None of the statements in (1) through (4) directly contradicts any other, so if the set is logically inconsistent, it must be because we can deduce a contradiction from it. This is precisely what atheologians claim to be able to do.
Atheologians claim that a contradiction can easily be deduced from (1) through (4) once we think through the implications of the divine attributes cited in (1) through (3). They reason as follows:
(6) If God is omnipotent, he would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
(7) If God is omniscient, he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it.
(8) If God is perfectly good, he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
Statements (6) through (8) jointly imply that if the perfect God of theism really existed, there would not be any evil or suffering. However, as we all know, our world is filled with a staggering amount of evil and suffering. Atheologians claim that, if we reflect upon (6) through (8) in light of the fact of evil and suffering in our world, we should be led to the following conclusions:
(9) If God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.
(10) If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all- powerful.
(11) If God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent it—that is, he must not be all-knowing.
From (9) through (11) we can infer:
(12) If evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.
Since evil and suffering obviously do exist, we get:
(13) God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.
Putting the point more bluntly, this line of argument suggests that—in light of the evil and suffering we find in our world—if God exists, he is either impotent, ignorant or wicked. It should be obvious that (13) conflicts with (1) through (3) above. To make the conflict more clear, we can combine (1), (2) and (3) into the following single statement.
(14) God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good.
There is no way that (13) and (14) could both be true at the same time. These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory.
Statement (14) is simply the conjunction of (1) through (3) and expresses the central belief of classical theism. However, atheologians claim that statement ( 13) can also be derived from (1) through (3). [Statements (6) through (12) purport to show how this is done.] (13) and (14), however, are logically contradictory. Because a contradiction can be deduced from statements (1) through (4) and because all theists believe (1) through (4), atheologians claim that theists have logically inconsistent beliefs. They note that philosophers have always believed it is never rational to believe something contradictory. So, the existence of evil and suffering makes theists’ belief in the existence of a perfect God irrational.
(6) If God is omnipotent, he would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
(7) If God is omniscient, he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it.
Both these SUGGEST something that we do NOT knwo to be true.
We do NOT know that an omnipotent God would prevent evil, we can assume He would based on Him being Good ( of course that leads us to define Good and how good can exist without evil to define it).
If God is all knowing then he MAY know a reason for evil to exist so an all knwoing God may not eliminate evil or prevent it because it may serve a purpose.
.................It didn't say that an omnipotent God WOULD prevent evil, it says that an omnipotent God would be ABLE to prevent evil.
.................It didn't say that an omnipotent God WOULD prevent evil, it says that an omnipotent God would be ABLE to prevent evil.
Why? what does omnipotence have to do with good or evil?
If an omnipotent being can't create a square circle or dry water, does that make them NOT ominpotent?
Omnipotence has nothing to do with good or evil, omnipotence is the power to do anything. Are you saying that an omnipotent being would not be able to stop evil? Is evil more powerful than God?
A square circle and dry water are logical inconsistencies. Most theists argue that a human being could not define God in worldly terms (a simple way to escape reality), and yet theists argue with worldy terms like a square circle or dry water. Who is to say that dry water is impossible? Us, measly humans as opposed to your great God? You argue with terms you argue against.
You are using an adjective to describe subject. In other words, square as an object that looks square, and a circle being the actual subject. By saying a square circle you are going against the evidential definition of a circle. It is the same as saying a leaf tree or a mammal ant. Dry water is the absence of water. Being that dry is the adjective antonym of water then dry water is simply the opposite of water, no water.
Taking two different things, water and the absence of water, and putting it together to argue about the definition of omnipotence doesn't answer the original argument.
The point is to give me a reason for this:
(1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful).
(2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing).
(3) God is perfectly good.
(4) Evil exists.
How is this possible? We aren't arguing about select parts of this statement, we are talking about this statement, all together, whole.
In my opinion its better to ask this question with things are that independent of human choices and action. Diseases, natural disasters, cancer, etc.
Any argument will boil down to "we just don't understand God's more perfect plan from our perspective right now." In fact there are many debates that would boil down to this.
And the whole mess of religion/god/etc is necessary because, basically, science's argument on the origin of life & the universe is "We just don't understand how that happened from our perspective right now."
Can respond with a question " if your government was doing as much as God is in dealing with the big issues of the day, Would you vote them back in?
Hello cantleave. The question is moot because most of world's problems are caused by politics and I hate politics and Jesus hates politics too (I am no part of the word, Jesus said-he did, you know).
Politics aside, if my government was doing as much as God I would vote them in. They are doing less then my God, I still vote, if I had to, for democracy, for my government. It works pretty well despite the machinations of the . Just think how rosey everything will be after the . And then when we will allow evolution to do it's best work, a lovely world we will be!
What is your God doing?
He's my friend
