CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Some of the characteristics typically ascribed to god contradict one another.
The characterization of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good is quite common in Western society. Yet, it can be contended that two or more of these characteristics contradict with one another. If this is the case, it can be asserted that God, if he exists, cannot have all three of these characteristics.
The contradictions start with the omnipotence paradox. This raises a question "can god create a [Blank] that even he cannot [Blank]". Based on the philosopher you are reading you can fill in the blanks. I personally like the "can god create a puzzle that even he cannot solve" version. If God can create the puzzle, then he lacks the power to solve the puzzle and if he can't then he lacks the power to create the puzzle.
A counterargument here is that this is not what is meant by omnipotence. Instead, omnipotence refers to god being able to do all logical things. Yet, if god's power is limited by the realm of logic, is that true omnipotence?
Then there is the contradiction of omnibenevolence and omnipotence. God cannot possess both of these qualities in a world where evil persists. God is either: Willing but unable to remove evil, Able but unwilling to remove evil, or unable and unwilling to remove evil.
The counterargument here is that God is willing and able, but does not wish to interfere with free will. However, the very fact that god would value free will over ending pain and suffering supports the argument that he is unwilling to rid the world of evil. Another argument is that god is willing and able, and plans to do so. However, every second counts contributing to pain and suffering. To allow that pain and suffering is not good. It means that god is still in this moment unwilling.
Christians over the years have as you well know come up with various attempts at solutions to these paradoxes ranging from linguistic trickery such as redefining and restating the paradoxes and will just constantly redefine the characteristics of god to fit and counter the latest best argument , when all else fails the mystery card is played as in “god works in mysterious ways and ours not to know the mind of god “ yet they seem to know the mind and intentions of god when preaching to others.
Regards the paradoxes I asked before “ could an all powerful god draw a four sided triangle on a large screen that us his creations would find perfectly logical “ of course the answer was a resounding “ yes” this is the sort of lunacy one deals with while engaging Christians.
Regards the problem of evil theists will actually defend a god regarding events like the holocaust by stating how do we know god did not allow such for a greater good? This regulates us humans into a position as being so unintelligent that we cannot comprehend what greater good god had in mind. Is it also acceptable and compatible with a highly intelligent god to actually think his best plan for a greater good is to allow events like a holocaust take place so his grand plan can unfold , there would or could not be another way to achieve his aims.
Children are abused and raped daily and an all loving god observes and does nothing his subjects who are vastly inferior in intelligence and morality ( apparently) would intervene and save a child if they could but yet god is morally superior.
We as humans will say Murder is wrong , God says murder is wrong according to Christians , if god says murder is right tomorrow is it right?
A counterargument here is that this is not what is meant by omnipotence. Instead, omnipotence refers to god being able to do all logical things. Yet, if god's power is limited by the realm of logic, is that true omnipotence?
God would either have created or God is the logic of the universe. If God created it, then God can manipulate it. In which case God can create a puzzle God can’t solve and yet solve it, because the law of non-contradiction won’t apply. If God is the logic of the universe, then it’s Gods all powerful existence which set the standard by which you present your logical challenge.
The counterargument here is that God is willing and able, but does not wish to interfere with free will.
There is another counter argument. The limited mortal perspective is not sufficient to judge what is truly evil. The big picture, from the perspective of eternity may find that, in fact, no evil exists beyond our mortal perspective which is necessary and of infinite benefit which we do not understand.
God would either have created or God is the logic of the universe. If God created it, then God can manipulate it. In which case God can create a puzzle God can’t solve and yet solve it, because the law of non-contradiction won’t apply
Amarel, you really do write some complete and utter senseless bollocks.
The limited mortal perspective is not sufficient to judge what is truly evil.
The only possible claim for the existence of evil comes from the mortal perspective you nonsensical nincompoop. And exactly the same applies to God.
If you were in my philosophy class you'd fail. If you were in anybody's philosophy class you'd fail. You'd fail in any philosophy class in which the chief lecturer wasn't a drunken one-eyed horse.
To the contradiction of omnipotence, I concede. If it can be asserted that God is not bounded down by logic and the law of non-contradiction, then the answer is god can create a puzzle that he cannot solve. However, now we must ask if it is possible for something to live beyond the limitations of logic and ask how do we know God lives beyond logic.
However to say the limited moral perspective is not sufficient to judge what is evil...this suggests that things like murder and rape are not evil. If you are saying this, so be it...no evil exist and the concept of what is evil is a construct of man. However, these things are objectively evil, evil does exist. And the existence of evil proves that God cannot be all-good.
Even if there is a cosmic rationale for allowing murder and other objectively evil things to exist, the appears to be a problem because an all-powerful god would be able to create whatever balance needed without the use of evil on earth. The existence of evil can only be part of the design of a malevolent deity.
the answer is god can create a puzzle that he cannot solve. However, now we must ask if it is possible for something to live beyond the limitations of logic and ask how do we know God lives beyond logic.
The two arguments I gave is that God created the logic of the universe, or God is the logic of the universe. If God is the logic of the universe, then we need not look for the ways in which God is beyond logic. It would be God’s omnipotent nature that created the existence of logical impossibility.
However, these things are objectively evil, evil does exist.
If you are saying this from the perspective of a mortal human, this is not an argument. A mortal human isn’t in a position to make the claim you’ve made.
Even so, let’s assume that we do know objective good from evil. It does not follow that any evil necessitates a malevolent god. That’s the same faulty logic that implies the existence of any good necessitates the existence of a benevolent god. Since some good is not sufficient to imply an all-good god, some evil is not sufficient to imply a malevolent god.
If evil necessarily exists as a logical contrast to the good, then the all-powerful nature of logic, as embodied by God, necessitates the existence of evil as a contrast to an all-good God. The existence of said evil cannot be justified except by one who is all-knowing, and can see the ultimate good that arises as a consequence of mortal evil. Without omniscience, you just don’t have all the facts.
The two arguments I gave is that God created the logic of the universe, or God is the logic of the universe. If God is the logic of the universe, then we need not look for the ways in which God is beyond logic. It would be God’s omnipotent nature that created the existence of logical impossibility.
I did not dispute this, I merely asked if such characterizations of god would be possible and how can it is known these characterizations are possible.
If you are saying this from the perspective of a mortal human, this is not an argument. A mortal human isn’t in a position to make the claim you’ve made.
Why can't a mortal deity purpose that evil objectively exists. I stand on the position that evil is either something that objectively exists or it is something that subjectively exists. If it objectively exists what blocks mortal beings from being able to observe objective morality?
It does not follow that any evil necessitates a malevolent god.
It does necessitate a malevolent god if that god exists and if that god has the knowledge of evil and the ability to stop evil, but opts to allow evil to persist.
I am not saying that evil itself necessitates a malevolent god, but rather a god that will allow evil to persist while holding omniscience and omnipotence cannot be omnibenevolent. And the act of not interfering to prevent evil while having the power to do so and while being in full knowledge of that evil--makes you culpable through your inaction.
And perhaps malevolent is not the best word, but certainly, this shows that this deity is neutral at best. But nonetheless, your omnibenevolence is not present since that evil persists as a product of your inaction.
The existence of said evil cannot be justified except by one who is all-knowing and can see the ultimate good that arises as a consequence of mortal evil. Without omniscience, you just don’t have all the facts.
And this goes to the heart of what I am saying...
1. Mortal Evil exists.
2. There is an ultimate good that can arise as a product of mortal evil.
3. If God lacks the power to reach this ultimate good without mortal evil then he is not omnipotent.
4. If God lacks the knowledge to reach the ultimate good without mortal evil then he is not omniscient
5. If God has both the power and knowledge of a way to achieve the ultimate good without pain, suffering and mortal evil--he is not omnibenevolent.
I did not dispute this, I merely asked if such characterizations of god would be possible and how can it is known these characterizations are possible.
I restated the two alternatives, not because you disputed them, but because you accepted one for argument and ignored the other. True characterizations of God cannot be known. In dealing with the ultimate nature of reality, all is speculation.
I stand on the position that evil is either something that objectively exists or it is something that subjectively exists. If it objectively exists what blocks mortal beings from being able to observe objective morality?
My position was that the existence of evil from our mortal perspective, could conceivably be in the service of an ultimate good which we cannot perceive, but which an all-knowing god would. For example, many positive virtues are developed only in the struggle against badness and evil. Thus a god who does not allow for evil would be failing to allow for higher achievements of good.
It does necessitate a malevolent god if that god exists and if that god has the knowledge of evil and the ability to stop evil, but opts to allow evil to persist.
What if it were the necessary nature of the universe that humanity is the means by which God combats evil? It would then be a contradiction of God’s own logic to intervene.
If it is necessary for humans to combat evil, then it is necessary for God not to.
You’re applying human morality to God, who is not a human. The human perspective is one of partial-knowledge, partial-power, and partial-goodness. If there is an Omni-benevolent-good-knowing god, your moral reasoning is too limited to be applicable. Again, you just don’t have all the necessary information to make your judgment.
1. Mortal Evil exists.
Ok. Agreed.
2. There is an ultimate good that can arise as a product of mortal evil.
Ok. Worth considering.
3. If God lacks the power to reach this ultimate good without mortal evil then he is not omnipotent.
Unless the logic of the universe is the omnipotent power of God expressed in the ordering of what is otherwise randomness and contradiction. Then evil must be combatted through the logical process, as an example of God’s omnipotence.
4. If God lacks the knowledge to reach the ultimate good without mortal evil then he is not omniscient
Your expressing a mortal preference against mortal evil with no reason to suppose that a good god should have that same preference. Especially given an omniscient god would have the big picture knowledge to know if mortal evil is actually evil.
5. If God has both the power and knowledge of a way to achieve the ultimate good without pain, suffering and mortal evil--he is not omnibenevolent.
I’ve challenged points 3 and 4. It seems the crux of the matter is that you are applying mortal preferences to an immortal god. If god had your same mortal preferences, then I wouldn’t expect god to have immortal characteristics such as those being discussed.
On the other hand, I am fully willing to accept the proposition that whatever the characteristics of God, the nature of reality is acceptable to God. Thus, mortal evils are acceptable to God.
My push-back is on the conclusion that God’s acceptability itself derives from evil rather than good, given we only have a humans eye view. Supposing that God should like what you like or hate what you hate in order for God to be good seems as shortsighted as one might predict from a mortal perspective.
My position was that the existence of evil from our mortal perspective, could conceivably be in the service of an ultimate good which we cannot perceive, but which an all-knowing god would. For example, many positive virtues are developed only in the struggle against badness and evil. Thus a god who does not allow for evil would be failing to allow for higher achievements of good.
Yes, but an all-powerful and all-knowing god would have the ability to instill in humans theses virtues without the need for evil or badness. And the fact that this good is using evil or badness to instill in us these virtues would make her incapable of being all-good because there is still the fact that the diety is allowing mortal evil to persist.
And perhaps these mortal evils are only evils from our perspective and to god things like humans murdering one another is not evil. Well, that would just mean that there is no right or wrong in the mortal sense, if an all-good being is using these things to achieve ultimate goodness. These things cannot be considered objectively wrong if god does not consider them wrong and even depends on them to achieve good.
Essentially under this diety murder is not evil and might actually be good despite the pain and suffering it causes.
However, if evil does exist and things like murder are considered evil when humans do them, then a god cannot be all-good for implementing them because this god is using evil to achieve a goal when he has the power and knowledge to not use evil to achieve his goal.
Evil is still evil, even when it is mortal evil. And using evil to achieve an ultimate good is still a contradiction to the statement that one is all good. Even if ultimate good can be achieved that evil was still part of that process meaning that the creator of ultimate good is not all-good. Perhaps it is partially good or mostly good, but not all-good. All-good can only exist in the total absence of evil.
Also, a contradiction is a contradiction regardless of my limited understanding of why such contradictions exist. Of course, you could be saying that these things to god are not contradictions, but using the definition of what a contradiction is--they are contradictions.
And I am not saying god should like what I like to be good, but rather if objective evil exists (and if mortal evils like murder are objectively evil) then it acts as a contradicton to god being characterized as all-good, all-knowing, or all-powerful.
And even if you would say god is capable of contradiction in his omnipotence, these contradictions still exist. Even if god is the logic of the universe, then by his logic these attributes contradict one another. Even if god created logic, by the logic he created, these things contradict. Even if I cannot understand with my limited human knowledge how god can allow a contradiction to be realized while at the same time not allowing them to be realized, they still contradict.
You’re still overlooking the importance of the fact that all of your suppositions come from a position of ignorance (non-omniscience). Not only can you not know what an omniscient god would know, but you also can’t know the nature of omnipotence or omni-benevolence. Why should all-powerful mean impossible power? Why should all-goodness mean goodness according to mortal you?
You seem to suppose the the most powerful being should be so powerful that they can do what’s impossible, rather than merely all things that are possible. You seem to suppose that an omni-benevolent god would do good according to your mortal estimation. But “good” according to your mortal estimation requires logically impossible things, and there is no reason to suppose that “all-powerful” means “beyond all-powerful”. There is similarly no reason to think an all-knowing being would know what a round square looks like.
I believe these suppositions are rooted in an idea of god as magical, rather than god as ultimately natural. Magical god tends to be the target of atheists, while ultimately natural god is often god to theists.
If omnipotence means powerful enough to do all possible things, then impossible things are irrelevant. Perhaps creating a universe according to god’s own logic is the most powerful and good thing a god can do. Perhaps this is the best of all possible worlds, and your mortal preferences against bad things are merely mortal preferences. This would mean that it is better that people can murder than if people could not. Only an omniscient god could know all the consequences of disallowing evil in a universe where disallowing consequences is logically impossible and thus a non-alternative.
Because by definition, that is what it means to say all-powerful. It means having all power...the capability to do absolutely anything. And things that which we find are impossible are included in this based on the wording and definition. So even if god is powerful enough to achieve the impossible and to contradict himself. That contradiction still exists. If god does not have such power to achieve that which we find impossible can it truly be said that he holds ALL power. I do not need to know the nature of omnipotence to know that if the all-powerful being is incapable of achieving certain tasks it is no longer all-powerful. Nor do I need to know the nature of omnipotence to recognize when two characteristics or two abilities contradict one another.
Why should all-goodness mean goodness according to mortal you?
I am not saying all-goodness means goodness according to me. What I am saying is that if murder (the unjust killing of another human) is objectively evil as determined by the creator...then an all-good being would not allow such evil to exist. In being complacent with evil this being would not be acting benevolently and at best would be acting neutrally. Putting aside what I find right or wrong...if there is evil, objective evil, and this god has knowledge of evil, why would it be benevolent to allow evil? This is especially true if this complacent god is the one who created evil. How can the originator of evil be benevolent? And this is especially true if this god created humans with a capacity to commit evil knowing that this evil will be acted despite knowing this evil to objectively wrong?
And if god is omnibenevolent, then that would mean that which we mortals find evil must not be objectively evil.
You seem to suppose the the most powerful being should be so powerful that they can do what’s impossible, rather than merely all things that are possible.
That is because only being able to do all that which is possible and ONLY that which is possible makes you EXTREMELY powerful, but not all-powerful for the simple fact that your are incapable of doing that wich is impossible. That is a limitation on ones power.
There is similarly no reason to think an all-knowing being would know what a round square looks like.
Ah, but how can YOU know this with your limited human knowledge...how can you know if there is a reason or not to think this...or if the all-knowing god does know what a round square looks like?
I believe these suppositions are rooted in an idea of god as magical, rather than god as ultimately natural. Magical god tends to be the target of atheists, while ultimately natural god is often god to theists.
Let's turn to what theists believe of their god or at least what the Christain faith has to say:
Luke 1:37: "For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
This would suggest that even that which we find contradictory (something impossible) can be achieved by god. And really I know many Christians that believe in magic and witchcraft. They also believe in ghosts and the supernatural. Of course they do not think of magic as witchcraft, and I know many that consider miracles to be acts acheived against nature. That is not to say they are considered magic, but they are considered a suspension of the natural order to display god's power.
The impossible things are relevant when there are those that believe god can achieve the impossible.
Perhaps creating a universe according to god’s own logic is the most powerful and good thing a god can do.
If it is the most powerful thing, then that means god is the most powerful being, yet that still doesn't mean all-powerful as all-powerful means being able to achieve anything and having unlimited power. Any limitations to that power proves that this being is not omnipotent even if it has the power to do something so powerful.
The same can be said about omnibenevolence. Just because I did the most moral thing one can do does not mean I am not capable of objective evil if such a thing exist. And in acting evil or creating evil I display that I am not omnibenevolent.
Only an omniscient god could know all the consequences of disallowing evil in a universe where disallowing consequences is logically impossible and thus a non-alternative.
Yet, it does not take omniscience to know that if there is objective evil (beyond my personal preferences), and if there is an ultimate and objective good...a god that knows all would know a way to achieve the ultimate good without the persistence of objective evil. And an omnibenevolent god would be invested in seeking this route to accomplish what must need to be accomplished to achieve ultimate good. And if that god is all-powerful he would have the means od accomplishing the route that she seeks.
I do not need omniscience to know that by the definition of all-power (ability to do all things), all-knowing (knowledge of all things), and all-good (desire to achieve ultimate goodness) to know the above statement is true.
If something is objectively evil (evil as determined by that god)...it simply would not be part of that god's plan.
Perhaps this is the best of all possible worlds, and your mortal preferences against bad things are merely mortal preferences.
The characterization of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good is quite common in Western society
But for those asserting this the case can be made by opponents that the character of god is all evil , the case can be made using the self same “logic” used by believers and is equally as “valid” in the sense that believers seem to think.
Yet again the character of a god could be both evil and god thereby sidestepping the whole argument again
1. I have a life...therefore, I am not going to always immediately respond.
2. When did I say the bible used these three terms? There are people who believe in god...theists from a multitude of religions who give this these characteristics to the god they believe in. If you want to debate whether or not the Bible uses these characteristics to describe god, you may want to talk to Christians who interpret the bible as saying that. I am merely posing this question for those that believe god hold all three characteristics.
Can you also explain the logic of proclaiming that God does not have all three characteristics while at the same time voting that these characteristics are non-contradictory?