There is a dialogue I often see in My God, and I can't help but think it ends too soon, and that the 'wrong side' are all too often seen to be the correct side of the discussion. Generally, Paul says that if God is so good, then there would be no sin, suffering, or pain in the world. Coming to God's defense, John says that God gave us freewill, and that that is why there is so many horrors in the world. This leads to Paul retorting that if God was all powerful -- logic-defyingly powerful -- then he can make a world in which everyone has freewill but where there is no suffering. Now John usually scuttles off here, but isn't it possible that in his last "if", Paul has himself provided the condition necessary for resolving, or rather, rejecting the problem of evil? Can not the theist simply say "if God is so logic-defyingly powerful, as you say, then why can he not make a world in which evil exists, he is still all powerful, all loving, and all knowing, there is a perfectly good reason for the world being in such a state, and in which there is no good reason for doubting or questioning God's goodness and omnipoetence, including the problem of evil?" Can not John use Paul's conditional against him?

there is a perfectly good reason for the world being in such a state, and in which there is no good reason for doubting or questioning God's goodness and omnipoetence, including the problem of evil?"

A perfectly good reason, in which no good reason exists within...

:confused:

Unless it was clearly stated, the "perfectly good reason" would remain an unknown; it would require being taken on faith alone. That's clearly what Paul is struggling with at the outset - taking it on faith.

Having provided that there was no good reason to doubt or question, John would essentially be telling Paul to believe it without seriously contemplating it. With the free will Paul is equipped with, he has the option of choosing which truths to believe. Asking that he not question or doubt what is presented to him as truth is stifling his power to choose and undermining free will, is it not?

If God is omnipotent, all powerful, why would anything be excluded from that? If any subjective 'evil' were left out, how could that be called "all powerful"? Wouldn't "all good", or "all evil" each only be a part of omnipotence, only half of the equation, only half of the balance?

A perfectly good reason, in which no good reason exists within...

I think you misunderstood me, but even if you didn't, I can just say that if God is logic-defying, anything goes and it doesn't have to make sense, since we are discussing something God has done. And please, in the debate, Paul is generally trying to persuade John not to believe (I doubt Paul is struggling with anything), but any argument that involves "god can do anything, so..." can be turned on its head, so John's faith is left in tact and the debate becomes meaningless. In order for faith to be shaken in most cases, and in order for there to be meaningful theological debate, God has to be limited.

Man. I want to make this simple. As simple as possible, and it is simple. You're just going to have to commit yourself to think on it. Some of you will, some of you won't. I'm the same way. If I'm reluctant to hear something that could destroy the foundations of what I've built my life off of, but you have to remain open to Truth.

ABSOLUTION: It's what we're all after. (I've found mine and I know I have because I'm not afraid to question it.)

You have a child. You love this baby. You look at your child and provide for your child because you know that you must in order for your baby's development. You can hold the bottle to your baby's mouth, but you can't make the baby drink. Know that. When you behold your baby, it's you. It's your OWN flesh and blood, I can hardly fathom the over-whelming joy that could be experienced here, although I hope to have children later on in my life. Do you ever think of just killing that child because you know that they will make mistakes and mess up? Or do you want to be there for them when they do fall, to help them get back up, and carry on?

How do you think God feels for His children?

How do you think God feels for His children?

Picture this.......before you even have a child, you decide you are going to hate and punish it. You are going to do this to prove what a bad ass you are to the world. Better yet just read Romans chapter 9.

Or let's say you have a child, and I say to you:

"Do you think that child would love you, if you did not give it so many blessings"

To prove a point you murder everyone the child knows and loves, and destroy everything that child has done with it's life. The child says he still loves you (perhaps b/c you are ALL he has left, who knows).

Life destroyed, point proven.

God owes Job and Easu an apology.

-------------

Seems to me John and Paul are both figuring out what bullshit God is, or at least the holes in the plot. Seems that to include this supposed dialogue in the bible is meant to quell the logical questions in the minds of those of faltering faith.

Paul really said, "This has been fun, not working my whole life." John said, "Yeah, who would have thought so many dumbfucks out there would buy my book Gods they dont want you to know about."

Then Paul said "I miss Jesus" to which John replied "Me too, he tasted like veal."

Now John usually scuttles off here, but isn't it possible that in his last "if", Paul has himself provided the condition necessary for resolving, or rather, rejecting the problem of evil? Can not the theist simply say "if God is so logic-defyingly powerful, as you say, then why can he not make a world in which evil exists, he is still all powerful, all loving, and all knowing, there is a perfectly good reason for the world being in such a state, and in which there is no good reason for doubting or questioning God's goodness and omnipoetence, including the problem of evil?" Can not John use Paul's conditional against him?

I think I know who "Paul" is... ;)


1. While you're right that this hasn't really been discussed lately, this point has been brought forward. I've replied to it many times in the past, specially against DS and xtreem, a long time ago.

2. My reply to the argument that god could be both benevolent and evil at the same time if he can do the illogical, is that this is meaningless to us humans. In the end, we still suffer, we still feel pain, we still experience what we call "bad" , and we eperience all of this needlesly so.

So if the theist wants that "victory" (i.e. that their god keeps the label of "benevolent" while we all suffer miserably) he can. It sure as hell doesn't beneffit him in the slightest.

I can think of no better argument against Christianity, than Christianity itself saying "Yes, you're suffering unbelievable pain, and yes our God can stop it at any point yet deliberately allows it to continue... but we still consider himm good". Knock yourselves out Christians (or theists)!

I think I know who "Paul" is... ;)

No one in particular, in all honesty. I was just interested in what would be people's thoughts on the subject. Yours has been the best so far.

God is a part of everything, therefore god is all powerful and all knowing. Evil is just disconnection from god which is a choice that comes from free will. Your consciousness comes from god, therefore god experiences all of your pain and all of your evil just like you do(and your "good"). Basically, god is just experiencing itself. All pain passes, everything returns to the absolute which is the departure point of all things that exist and ever will exist.

Can not the theist simply say ... there is a perfectly good reason for the world being in such a state...

On the issue of a "good reason", the theist cannot say that with any certainty. It could be he has a bad reason, or if he has the power to do the illogical, both a good and a bad reason at the same time.

In two of those cases it's "correct" to say it's a bad reason. :D

evil and suffering are the product of an aberrant human mind

Picture this.......before you even have a child, you decide you are going to hate and punish it. You are going to do this to prove what a bad ass you are to the world. Better yet just read Romans chapter 9.

Or let's say you have a child, and I say to you:

"Do you think that child would love you, if you did not give it so many blessings"

To prove a point you murder everyone the child knows and loves, and destroy everything that child has done with it's life. The child says he still loves you (perhaps b/c you are ALL he has left, who knows).

Life destroyed, point proven.

God owes Job and Easu an apology.

-------------

Seems to me John and Paul are both figuring out what bullshit God is, or at least the holes in the plot. Seems that to include this supposed dialogue in the bible is meant to quell the logical questions in the minds of those of faltering faith.

Paul really said, "This has been fun, not working my whole life." John said, "Yeah, who would have thought so many dumbfucks out there would buy my book Gods they dont want you to know about."

Then Paul said "I miss Jesus" to which John replied "Me too, he tasted like veal."

Heres the wrench thrown into your faulty cogs:

Free will.

Job chose to still love God. Chose. Chose because he had faith in his Gods will, and the rightness of his existence in relation to Gods will.

We all know the old testament is barbaric. Yet there is a reason its still in book form for you to read. Try reading summore.

There is a dialogue I often see in My God, and I can't help but think it ends too soon, and that the 'wrong side' are all too often seen to be the correct side of the discussion. Generally, Paul says that if God is so good, then there would be no sin, suffering, or pain in the world. Coming to God's defense, John says that God gave us freewill, and that that is why there is so many horrors in the world. This leads to Paul retorting that if God was all powerful -- logic-defyingly powerful -- then he can make a world in which everyone has freewill but where there is no suffering. Now John usually scuttles off here, but isn't it possible that in his last "if", Paul has himself provided the condition necessary for resolving, or rather, rejecting the problem of evil? Can not the theist simply say "if God is so logic-defyingly powerful, as you say, then why can he not make a world in which evil exists, he is still all powerful, all loving, and all knowing, there is a perfectly good reason for the world being in such a state, and in which there is no good reason for doubting or questioning God's goodness and omnipoetence, including the problem of evil?" Can not John use Paul's conditional against him?


many times i have been asked this question or similar questions.. ultimately the only answer i can find is this.... YES God is powerful enough to create a world with freewill and no suffering, but they simply do not go hand in hand... after the fall of adam, we are all born inherently wicked. God created Adam with freewill and the ability to err because he did not want a mindless slave, but rather someone who would do the right thing simply because he realized the magnificence of God.

The base attribute of omnipotence makes any argument against its abilities, actions, and other attributes null and void, which I think is the idea Hare was expressing.

God could murder babies and still be omnibenevolent because He is omnipotent...completely unbound by any limitation, be it perception, logic, reality, etc.

It's kind of like the kid who says, "Yeah, well my dad can bench-press infinity PLUS ONE!" Does it make any sense? No. It doesn't have to, either.

ABSOLUTION: It's what we're all after. (I've found mine and I know I have because I'm not afraid to question it.)


ab·so·lu·tion (bs-lshn)
n.
1. The act of absolving or the state of being absolved.
2. The formal remission of sin imparted by a priest, as in the sacrament of penance.


^If that is what you mean by absolution, my response would be "what's this 'we' stuff"?

In my reality, there is no such thing as sin--that was a concept concocted by the priesthood as a means of maintaining control over the flock.

Likewise, there are no such things as "good" or "evil"--those are simply labels we place on things we approve or disapprove of, and that labelling says far more about the labeller than the labellee.

I tend to think in terms of "what serves my best interest" and "what does not." Still, even that notion needs some work, because at the Highest Level, everything that happens to me is in my best interest. There is a perfection in every situation, and if I cannot see it, the fault is in my perception, not the situation. In other words, there are no accidents, no coincidences--God does not make mistakes, and sends me nothing but blessings and angels.

And if I wish to change the world, I need only change myself, for I am not in the world--the world is in me.

Congrats, a circular argument can go in a circle. OP has truly stumbled across a treasure trove.

Congrats, a circular argument can go in a circle. OP has truly stumbled across a treasure trove.

There is something you're not looking at.

"if God is so logic-defyingly powerful, as you say, then why can he not make a world in which evil exists, he is still all powerful, all loving, and all knowing, there is a perfectly good reason for the world being in such a state, and in which there is no good reason for doubting or questioning God's goodness and omnipoetence, including the problem of evil?" Can not John use Paul's conditional against him?

No. Why would he do that? What is this 'logic-defying powerful' supposed to mean? Having a lot of power doesn't defy logic. Anyway, people don't have free will. Every decision you make comes down to a series of chemical reactions occurring in your brain. If God exists, he's the creator, and was the one who created the state and structure of people's brains. If God exists, he designed every characteristic of everybody's personality, and free will is a lie.