A POE Related Question
Posted in Logic, Philosophy, Quickies on | 1 minute | 16 Comments →
Would you accept the presence of evil as evidence of an evil, but not necessarily omnipotent god? Why or why not?
A POE Related QuestionWould you accept the presence of evil as evidence of an evil, but not necessarily omnipotent god? Why or why not?
dove124
says...Why is with people like you, keep on adding adjectives to God, like omnipotent, omni-etc. , etc.?
Can’t you not just stick to a simple word, like, God? Remove the omni-thing. That way you will not be called or accused of being “stupid, or a moron”.
lackofcheese
says...He said “god”, not “God”; the former is relatively nondescript.
My answer to the question:
Yes. The absence of evil would be very strong evidence against such a god, and hence its presence is exceedingly weak evidence in favour of such a god.
Practically speaking, the possibility of such an evil deity is negligible and not worthy of consideration.
Rufus
says...I think it would follow that if there were an evil god, it would not be an omnipotent god. This is because I subscribe to the view that all of the “omni” attributes though seemingly distinct, are each ways of speaking of the one simple entity that is God. Avicenna argues that all omni-attributes can be derived from the single attribute that God is necessary. Here is my Avicenna-style argument:
1. Some entity x is ontologically necessary if and only if x is morally perfect.
2. Some entity x is ontologically necessary if and only if x is omnipotent.
3. If demonic entity D is not morally perfect, then D is not ontologically necessary.
4. If D is not ontologically necessary, then D is not omnipotent.
5. Therefore, If D is not morally perfect, D is not omnipotent.
So from this, we can see that if there is some “god” that is morally imperfect, i.e. the cause of evil in this world, then such a god would not be omnipotent. The question is whether Avicenna was correct to argue that all omni-attributes follow from, or are expressions of, necessity. I think he has good arguments.
So, this “god” would not be ontologically necessary. Rather, he would be contingent. The theist is free to post the existence of such entities. I think they do exist, though I would not even grace them with the title “gods”. In fact, I think some evils do count as evidence for the existence of the demonic–unfortunately. But, the good thing is that, if my argument is sound, it is proof that they cannot be omnipotent. Further, since they are contingent, their existence requires the existence of something which is not contingent, i.e. something morally perfect and omnipotent.
Best,
Rufus
Peter Hurford
says...It seems just as how a Problem of Evil can be launched against an omnipotent, all-good God a “Problem of Good” could be launched against an onmipotent, all-bad God.
I would accept evil as evidence for an all-bad but not omnipotent deity on a theory that also explains where the good comes from, but I think this theory would still not explain the world as good as natural explanations can.
dove124
says...There is no such thing as omnipotent god(biblical or otherwise) or omnipresence or any “omni” thing . may it be evil or not, or even to the Creator Himself. So anyone who add this adjectives to God or god, are moron.
Rufus
says...dove124,
I think the Biblical God exists. So I guess I am a moron by your estimation. Still, I would like an explanation for why belief in an omnipotent God makes me moronic. Could you let me know why this is so? I could give you my reasons for thinking the belief is true, if you would like.
Best,
Rufus
dove124
says...God (The Father, The Son, Angels, Demons ) do exist. My point is, adding adjectives like; Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient to a word “God” ( The Father, or to His Son, ) is not biblical. Or to any lesser god at that. You put them in a place to which they don’t belong. The word “God”, or “god” is enough.These additional adjectives are products of persons who do not understand the bible.
READ the entire bible. No writers of those books , ever said or wrote that the God of the bible (The Creator) can do anything HE wants, because HE is ALL-POWERFUL or Omnipotent. But the bible, on contrary stated that this God’s power has a limitation. True HE is ALMIGHTY, But , there are things HE can’t or impossible to do.
And what about being Omnipresent ? meaning HE is everywhere. That’s not true either. The Father of Jesus Christ, NEVER at any given time, set HIS foot on this earth. That is biblical truth. So how can HE be present everywhere? Remember, being PRESENT EVERYWHERE , means also that, HE is in your stomach,in the toilet bowl, in the sewerages, in garbage cans, in your anus,in night clubs or disco houses,in casinos, and so on.
Now, same also with Omniscient, when HE gave humans freewill. God will not know what you will choose, before it reach your heart. But the moment it reach your heart, that is the only time HE will know the choice that you decide.
So, now you know why I stated , that anyone who uses these adjectives are Morons, when it comes to understanding the bible.
Understand carefully the verse:
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things ; in which are some things hard to be understood, WHICH THEY THAT ARE UNLEARNED and UNSTABLE WREST, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.(2 Peter 3:16)
READ THE BIBLE, VERY CAREFULLY!!
If there are particular things in the bible that you find hard to understand, just ask, and I will be just glad to answer it.
Peter Hurford
says...@dove124:
You may be interested cl’s post “Biblically Justify the Omni-4 Claim” and ensuing comments.
Also, how does God predict the future and make biblical prophecies if he isn’t omniscient?
J. K. Jones
says...An all-evil god could not produce good, and we find good in our universe.
Rufus
says...Dove124,
Thank you for your reply. I am surprised that you take such an unusual position here. There are many scriptural passages which confirm the teachings of orthodox Christianity on the matter of God’s attributes.
Scriptural Ground for omnipotence:
Revelation 19:6 from the KJV: “And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”
In the Greek, the key word is “pantokrator” which can mean either all mighty, or all power. Omnipotent is a fine translation of the word.
Scriptural Ground for omniscience:
John 21:17 from the KJV: “He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”
The key part in Greek is “su panta oidas”, which means “you know all”, “you see all” or “you perceive all”.
Scriptural Grounds for omnipresence:
Psalm 139:7-10 from the KJV: “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.”
Also Jeremiah 23:23-24 from the KJV: “Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.”
Now, I do not know Hebrew, so I am unable to go further than these translations, but taken together I think we have good grounds to believe in omnipresence.
Remember that omnipotence does not mean the ability to do the logically impossible. It merely means the ability to do the logically possible. William Lane Craig has a great series on the attributes of God which explains how these terms have been traditionally used and how theologians have defined them. I recommend downloading the podcast (his “Defender Series”).
Lastly, God is perfect: Matthew 5:48 “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
Greek word for perfect here is “teleios” which also means complete. Could God be complete and also lack in any way? I think not!
The majority of Christians and Christian theologians would agree with this reading of the scriptures. I am not standing outside of the mainstream here. So the question is, why are you? Is it because the majority of theologians, doctors of the church, and church fathers are morons? That is certainly a bold position to take–and somewhat snobby too. I think it might be that you have a very unorthodox interpretation for each of these passages. While collecting these passages, I only selected a few. There were many more. But I do not stand on Holy Scriptures alone, I also hold to the Holy traditions passed down through the Church, which Christ promised is guided by the Holy Spirit. As you advise us to take heed of 2 Peter 3:16, I would advise you to consider 2 Peter 1:20: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” I do not ask for private interpretations of the prophets of God as they reveal His word, but trust in the teaching authority of my church, i.e. the Magisterium.
Sorry for the length of this reply.
Best,
Rufus
cl
says...dove124,
I do this so we can know what we mean when we speak.
Alternatively, you could just accept that not everybody thinks like you, and refrain from calling fellow believers “morons” just because they don’t hold your view. I mean, I’ll get called “stupid” or “moron” regardless of how I describe God, so… I’m not really too concerned about that. Although, it’s usually from rude, arrogant atheists, and not fellow believers ;)
lackofcheese,
Why do you take that position? Specifically, why would absence entail “very strong” evidence against, but presence only “exceedingly weak” evidence?
Did you arrive at that conclusion empirically? If so, can I learn more about the process you used to generate such results? If not, might it be the case that your statement reduces to, “It seems to me that?”
Peter Hurford,
Same questions as to lackofcheese above: Did you arrive at that conclusion empirically? If so, can I learn more about the process you used to generate such results? If not, might it be the case that your statement reduces to, “It seems to me that?”
J.K. Jones,
Hey there. Haven’t seen you around the intertubes lately…
I tend to agree.
Rufus,
Would you mind if I posted a duplicate of your comment July 23, 2011 at 6:01 PM to this thread? It’s a perfect answer to the questions posed.
Rufus
says...cl,
That would be fine. Duplicate whatever you think might be relevant.
Best,
Rufus
lackofcheese
says...cl,
The former is quite obvious. If there is an evil deity of some form, then it must almost certainly be the cause some kind of evil in the world. Hence if there was no evil, that would be very strong evidence against such a deity.
Now, if the absence of evil would be evidence against the deity, it follows directly that its presence must be evidence in favour of it.
On the other hand, the fact is that there are many much better hypotheses, supported by other evidence, that explain the presence of what one would call “evil” in the world. Since there are good explanations for the existence of evil that don’t require an evil deity, the presence of evil is only very weak evidence in favour of this deity.
To answer your second question, strong evidence in favour of a hypothesis is an observation which is highly likely if the hypothesis is true, but – and this is the key – extremely unlikely if the hypothesis is false. Without strong evidence, your “evil deity” hypothesis isn’t really worth a second glance.
Peter Hurford
says...@cl:
I’m not sure what you’re looking for when you’re asking an “empirical” answer, but I think this discussion would hinge on explanatory virtues. My personal observation is of suffering distributed mindlessly according to rules like the germ theory of disease and natural selection, not distributed according to agency.
Peter Hurford
says...Also, I think you would have to specifically postulate a non omnipotent all evil god that will never directly manifest himself as any recognizable entity…such as an entity that just existed to create disease and then went away… Which is rather ad-hoc…
Thinking Emotions
says...J.K. Jones,
Are you serious?
An all-good god could not produce evil, and we find evil in our universe.
You can say that maybe god wasn’t the one who produced the evil, but then why does he have to be the one who produced the good in our universe under your assumption?