The Omnipotence Of God

[Orbit]

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

[♦ ficino ♦]

As a Calvinist, I would have denied #2.  I would have said that God creates evil, but is not evil, just as He creates matter but is not material.  I would have said that we understand the words "good" and "evil" only by analogy when they are applied to God, and that the unregenerate man cannot grasp the analogy well enough to understand the theodice.  Finally I would have turned the conversation around to your own evil, Orbit, and would challenge you to repent and believe.

 

As a Catholic I would have futzed around with an argument based on 1) denying that evil has positive existence, for it's only a privation, not a substance, and thus cannot be the direct object of God's actions;  2) pulling in free will somehow;  3) talking about "mystery."

 

In fact, when I was an ex-Calvinist Catholic, it was God's seeming refusal to answer the prayers of even little children, when we all prayed for a young man who was dying of cancer, that broke the back of my faith.

[OrdinaryClay]

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

This is an ancient and uninformed expression of the problem of evil. The answers are called theodicies. Have you taken the time to study what a theodicy is?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

This is an ancient and uninformed expression of the problem of evil. The answers are called theodicies. Have you taken the time to study what a theodicy is?

 

No, "the answers" are not called theodices, YOUR answers are called theodices.

 

Epicurus' words may be ancient, but they still make sense today, all these years later.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

This is an ancient and uninformed expression of the problem of evil. The answers are called theodicies. Have you taken the time to study what a theodicy is?

 

No, "the answers" are not called theodices, YOUR answers are called theodices.

 

Epicurus' words may be ancient, but they still make sense today, all these years later.

 

I've never written a Theodicy. Maybe you are trying to say you disagree with the conclusions of all Theodicies? Have you read any of them?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

This is an ancient and uninformed expression of the problem of evil. The answers are called theodicies. Have you taken the time to study what a theodicy is?

 

No, "the answers" are not called theodices, YOUR answers are called theodices.

 

Epicurus' words may be ancient, but they still make sense today, all these years later.

 

I've never written a Theodicy. Maybe you are trying to say you disagree with the conclusions of all Theodicies? Have you read any of them?

 

I do disagree with the conclusions of all theodices.  This is the part where you get to make your argument for the existence of a god.  Go on, were waiting...

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

This is an ancient and uninformed expression of the problem of evil. The answers are called theodicies. Have you taken the time to study what a theodicy is?

 

No, "the answers" are not called theodices, YOUR answers are called theodices.

 

Epicurus' words may be ancient, but they still make sense today, all these years later.

 

I've never written a Theodicy. Maybe you are trying to say you disagree with the conclusions of all Theodicies? Have you read any of them?

 

I do disagree with the conclusions of all theodices.  This is the part where you get to make your argument for the existence of a god.  Go on, were waiting...

 

 Have you studied or read any of them? Did you simply tell yourself they are false because you don't want to believe in God.

[mymistake]

 

 Have you studied or read any of them? Did you simply tell yourself they are false because you don't want to believe in God.

 

 

 

The ones I looked at are laughable.  I wanted to believe in God but could no longer because reality is so radically different than what the Bible claims.

 

Are you going to give us an explanation to laugh at or not?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

 

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

This is an ancient and uninformed expression of the problem of evil. The answers are called theodicies. Have you taken the time to study what a theodicy is?

 

No, "the answers" are not called theodices, YOUR answers are called theodices.

 

Epicurus' words may be ancient, but they still make sense today, all these years later.

 

I've never written a Theodicy. Maybe you are trying to say you disagree with the conclusions of all Theodicies? Have you read any of them?

 

I do disagree with the conclusions of all theodices.  This is the part where you get to make your argument for the existence of a god.  Go on, were waiting...

 

 Have you studied or read any of them? Did you simply tell yourself they are false because you don't want to believe in God.

 

Are you going to try to support your claim that biblegod exists or not?  The longer you put this off, the more I am inclined to believe you don't have much confidence in your own argument.  This is not surprising, because all arguments for biblegod fail.

 

As for wanting or not wanting to believe in biblegod, I tried but I couldn't do it.  Atheism is not a choice, it's the default position.  The burden of proof is on you.  If you have studied theodices and found just one that persuaded you, wouldn't you want to share it with us?  Give me your best argument for biblegod, we're waiting.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

This is an ancient and uninformed expression of the problem of evil. The answers are called theodicies. Have you taken the time to study what a theodicy is?

 

No, "the answers" are not called theodices, YOUR answers are called theodices.

 

Epicurus' words may be ancient, but they still make sense today, all these years later.

 

I've never written a Theodicy. Maybe you are trying to say you disagree with the conclusions of all Theodicies? Have you read any of them?

 

I do disagree with the conclusions of all theodices.  This is the part where you get to make your argument for the existence of a god.  Go on, were waiting...

 

 Have you studied or read any of them? Did you simply tell yourself they are false because you don't want to believe in God.

 

Are you going to try to support your claim that biblegod exists or not?  The longer you put this off, the more I am inclined to believe you don't have much confidence in your own argument.  This is not surprising, because all arguments for biblegod fail.

 

As for wanting or not wanting to believe in biblegod, I tried but I couldn't do it.  Atheism is not a choice, it's the default position.  The burden of proof is on you.  If you have studied theodices and found just one that persuaded you, wouldn't you want to share it with us?  Give me your best argument for biblegod, we're waiting.

 

You must be new here. I have shared my beliefs regarding the problem of evil on this forum in the past. I'm a Molinist.

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=Molinism+problem+of+evil

[mymistake]

 

You must be new here. I have shared my beliefs regarding the problem of evil on this forum in the past. I'm a Molinist.

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=Molinism+problem+of+evil

 

 

 

There once was a king who was told that fabulous new cloths could only be seen by wise men . . . 

 

 

http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

This is an ancient and uninformed expression of the problem of evil. The answers are called theodicies. Have you taken the time to study what a theodicy is?

 

No, "the answers" are not called theodices, YOUR answers are called theodices.

 

Epicurus' words may be ancient, but they still make sense today, all these years later.

 

I've never written a Theodicy. Maybe you are trying to say you disagree with the conclusions of all Theodicies? Have you read any of them?

 

I do disagree with the conclusions of all theodices.  This is the part where you get to make your argument for the existence of a god.  Go on, were waiting...

 

 Have you studied or read any of them? Did you simply tell yourself they are false because you don't want to believe in God.

 

Are you going to try to support your claim that biblegod exists or not?  The longer you put this off, the more I am inclined to believe you don't have much confidence in your own argument.  This is not surprising, because all arguments for biblegod fail.

 

As for wanting or not wanting to believe in biblegod, I tried but I couldn't do it.  Atheism is not a choice, it's the default position.  The burden of proof is on you.  If you have studied theodices and found just one that persuaded you, wouldn't you want to share it with us?  Give me your best argument for biblegod, we're waiting.

 

You must be new here. I have shared my beliefs regarding the problem of evil on this forum in the past. I'm a Molinist.

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=Molinism+problem+of+evil

 

Finally, gees it's easier pulling teeth I swear.

[RogueScholar]

The thing about all this omnipotence & omniscience business is that uncertainty is a fundamental part of the universe. There are simply no ways around this issue. Knowing everything that can be known about even the simplest system will always be associated with uncertainty. Not the kind that is associated with our technology but real, undeniable uncertainty. It is simply a fundamental part of our universe. The term omniscient and the term omnipotent really do not have any fundamental application when it comes to how our universe works.

 

Clay, you will need to present a robust, consistent and testable framework that allows arbitrarly accurate and precise measurements to convince me that any sort of "divine being" could possibly exist in our universe. As it stands, the universe just does not work without the fundamental uncertainties that underpin the interactions of matter and energy.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

This is an ancient and uninformed expression of the problem of evil. 

 

Actually, the bible is an ancient and uninformed expression of the problem of evil.  Good try, though.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I agree, Human, it was an inadequate response, but I was bored of him by that stage.  Your post was very good, thanks.

[Ravenstar]

Thank you Human, it's important that we challenge attempts to silence questioning… which is what they do when they throw out words like theodicy, and such.

 

It is NOT an adequate answer, it's a cop out.

[mymistake]

I've posted this before but since OC brought up Molinist again I think this is relevant:

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

You must be new here. I have shared my beliefs regarding the problem of evil on this forum in the past. I'm a Molinist.

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=Molinism+problem+of+evil

Oh no, not this again. The last time you pushed this, I pointed out that Molinism is vitiated by an equivocation fallacy. And many of us showed how it's unscriptural: Centauri, BAA, I don't even remember who else.

 

That was, what, well over a year ago. You disappeared not long after, although you surfaced again to throw in Bhim's face the assertion that Hinduism is riddled with demonic forces. When I called you on your "tu quoque" fallacy, you claimed you were not offering an argument against Bhim. We all called your bullshit and exposed your lie. And you disappeared.

 

Now you've reappeared, big as life and twice as sassy. Have you thought about the rot at the center of Molinism?

 

Aside from the fact that it denies God's sovereignty in scripture, the argument for Molinism does not go through.

 

A counterpart of Joe the Plumber in a counterfactual world is not identical to Joe the Plumber. That's because, by definition, not all that is true of Joe the Plumber in the real world is true of the counterpart Joe the Plumber in the counterfactual world.

 

But Molinism depends on an equivocation of Joe the Plumber in the real world and the counterpart Joe the Plumber in the counterfactual world. This equivocation undergirds Molinism's slide from predicates of the counterfactual Joe the Plumber to predicates of the real Joe the Plumber. But that slide disguises a quaternio terminorum. Your argument does not go through.

[bdp]

I'm a bdp-ist.

[Onyx]

All these arguments for omnipotence of God and evil blows my brain but not in a good way. It would be easier to dispense with God altogether and search for the Occam's razor for evil's existence. I do not know why they persist in believing God if God cannot account for Epicurus' question that satisfy our and his concepts of morality at all. Either God is weak or God is evil himself and that's if he exists. Otherwise nonexistence of God is our best explanation for God and evil.

[ironhorse]

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

 

 

Job, the oldest book in the Bible, answers some but does not

answer all questions about suffering and evil.

As a believer, I think that one day God may reveal more and we will get a broader understanding and see the reasons why.

God created us with free wills. He did not created programmed

robots.

 

This freedom allows us to make our own choices.

This is why I call him God and not a tyrant.

[mymistake]

 

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

 

 

Job, the oldest book in the Bible, answers some but does not

answer all questions about suffering and evil.

As a believer, I think that one day God may reveal more and we will get a broader understanding and see the reasons why.

God created us with free wills. He did not created programmed

robots.

 

This freedom allows us to make our own choices.

This is why I call him God and not a tyrant.

 

 

 

Oh yes, the Book of Job.  Obviously there is suffering on Earth, babies dies of AIDS, thousands of children starve to death every day, innocent people being blown up in war . . . because Satan made a bet with God and God accepted.

 

Silly God, always making wagers that get puny humans killed.

[Thackerie]

 

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

This is an ancient and uninformed expression of the problem of evil. The answers are called theodicies. Have you taken the time to study what a theodicy is?

 

 

Is "uninformed" synonymous with "untainted by christian bias"?

[bornagainathiest]

 

Christians, how do you respond to this?

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived 341-270 BCE.

 

 

Job, the oldest book in the Bible, answers some but does not

answer all questions about suffering and evil.

As a believer, I think that one day God may reveal more and we will get a broader understanding and see the reasons why.

God created us with free wills. He did not created programmed

robots.

 

This freedom allows us to make our own choices.

This is why I call him God and not a tyrant.

 

 

And yet the pivotal meetings in Job (the encounters between God and Satan) is an impossibility... according to scripture-based Christian theology.

 

God cannot tolerate the close presence of sin or sinners.

Likewise, Satan could not have approached God without being destroyed.

So how can Satan have come to present himself before God, as in Job 1 : 6 -12 and Job 2 : 1 - 7...?

 

Any faith Ironhorse puts in the veracity of the book of Job is therefore... mistaken.

 

It is fiction.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

God created us with free wills. He did not created programmed

robots.

 

This freedom allows us to make our own choices.

This is why I call him God and not a tyrant.

 

You are NOT allowed to talk about free will and its whitewashing of God any more.  The biblical basis for the free will doctrine, and for the work you want it to do in your system, has already been refuted on here many times.  Refuted by Centauri, BAA, Ravenstar, mymistake, and many others.

 

You are not allowed to bring up the "free will" meme anymore UNLESS you refute the refutations.

 

"I believe" has zero credibility.