[Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Mon May 16 06:14:50 PDT 2011
I'll have to look at Wayne's arguments more carefully -- though likely I'll
agree with most of what he says.
Just a repeat of one of the points I've already made to Donovan: How can it
wreak someones free will if God saves them from death at the hands of
another? It can't. Otherwise you should save anyone either!
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Donovan Arnold <
donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wayne,
>
> I just think you have too many false assumptions and false definitions of
> words in your arguments. We can always play these games, for example, in
> order to go from nine years of age to 10 years in age, a person must pass
> the half way point between 9 and 10, or 9.5 years in age. In order to get to
> 9.5 years in age, that person must pass the half way point between 9 and
> 9.5, or 9.25 years of age. This person must continue to pass through an
> infinite number of halfway points before reaching 10. Therefore, it only
> stands to reason that nobody can reach the age of 10 no matter how long they
> live
>
> Addressing your flawed reasoning on God and Evil;
>
> Evil, is to disobey God's command. It is not a specific act in and of
> itself. God created people with the ability to decide if they wish to obey
> or not obey. He can do that because He is all powerful. Humans create evil
> by doing what God has given them the ability to do, disobey God. God
> gave humans this ability because He wants people to freely choose to be
> with Him, not be forced to. Just like me and you don't want to be around
> just people that are forced to be.
>
> God always does the most benevolent thing He can without eliminating our
> ability to disobey Him. If God prevented people from killing or hurting each
> other He would be doing something far less benevolent then anything else by
> eliminating our ability to obey and be with Him after we die.
>
> I agree that we don't have freewill in everything we do. Most of our
> decisions are based on our genes and environment interacting. But we do have
> the freedom to choose to follow God, which is what He wants and the reason
> we are here.
>
> Donovan Arnold
>
>
>
> --- On *Sun, 5/15/11, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
> Subject: [Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan
> To: "Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: Sunday, May 15, 2011, 3:12 PM
>
>
> *The Problem of Evil: One Formulation *
>
>
>
> Did some allegedly all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omnificent),
> perfectly good (omnibenevolent) God Create the Universe?
>
>
>
> Let's assume so for the sake of argument.
>
>
>
> If this omnipotent, omnificent, omnibenevolent God created the universe,
> then God is the cause/determiner of everything which happened/happens/will
> happen or exists in the universe because if this God is omnificent, it had
> exact foreknowledge of everything that would happen as a result of this
> omnipotent creation from the moment of creation. To say otherwise would
> be to contradict God's omnificence and omnipotence.
>
>
>
> Hence, *everything* that happens in the universe was predetermined by God
> at the moment of creation. This includes *all acts of humankind*, and
> excludes completely the possibility of actual freewill/freedom to choose
> between performing good and/or evil acts, but not does not exclude the
> possibility of the fallacious appearance to humankind that freewill exists.
>
>
>
> Simply stated: If there is something that is not predetermined (unknown
> to or unpredicted by God), but somehow left to chance at the moment of
> creation, then God is not omnificent.
>
>
>
> If all is predetermined, the appearance that freewill exists is like a
> Hollywood set – possibly convincing to look at, but with naught behind it.
> To say there is a meaningful, left-to-chance choice is to say that God did
> not either cause/determine and/or know what the result of that choice would
> be – a denial of God's omnipotence and/or omnificence. If there is real
> choice (something God left to chance), then there is not predetermination,
> and thus a gap in God's knowledge, and therefore God would not be omnipotent
> and/or omnificent.
>
>
>
> If God is omnibenevolent (perfectly good), then *everything within God's
> control that happens, including all human acts is good, not evil*: God
> would not knowingly and intentionally perform any evil act, any act that
> would result in evil, or even allow anything evil in itself to exist. Nothing
> evil (the opposite of good) can exist if God is omnibenevolent and in total,
> complete control and the determiner of all that happens in the universe.
>
>
>
> For example, the acts of Jeffrey Dahmer where he tortured and murdered at
> least seventeen persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer) were
> good, not evil acts.
>
>
>
> Nor were the acts of Joseph Duncan evil acts, who among other crimes
> murdered three adults who were in the company of eight-year old Shasta
> Groene, abducted her and her nine year old brother Dylan, then raped,
> sexually tortured, and murdered Dylan in view of Shasta (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III). But such acts, having
> been initially knowingly and intentionally determined by an omnipotent,
> omnificent, omnibenevolent God, were good, not evil acts.
>
>
>
> Therefore, the belief by humankind that evil exists is in grievous error,
> if God is omnipotent, omnificent, and omnibenevolent.
>
>
>
> The Problem of Evil occurs because many persons believe that evil acts
> actually exist – the acts of Dahmer and Duncan would be called evil by many.
> Asserting that these acts were evil (not good) and were knowingly
> predetermined/caused by an omnibenevolent God, who could have done
> otherwise, creates an obvious contradiction between God's alleged
> omnipotence and omnificence on one hand, and God's alleged omnibenevolence
> on the other.
>
>
>
> If evil acts exist, then:
>
>
>
> A. God, if omnibenevolent, could not have foreseen nor prevented such
> acts or God would have prevented them, hence God is not omnipotent and/or
> omnificent.
>
>
>
> B. God could not be omnibenevolent in that God knowingly and
> intentionally caused/determined evil acts to occur despite that if God were
> omnipotent and omnificent, and thus the determiner of everything, could have
> prevented such acts.
>
>
>
> C. Therefore, *God cannot be omnipotent, omnificent, and
> omnibenevolent*.
>
>
>
> Once the premises are accepted that this alleged God is omnipotent,
> omnificent, and thus this God created and determined the universe as it now
> exists and everything it contains and all occurrences within it, then it
> follows that God, given all the infinite choices open to it:
>
>
>
> A. Knowingly and willfully chose to create/determine the universe in
> the way it now exactly exists, and
>
>
>
> B. This God knew exactly everything (perfectly, to the last watermelon
> seed) what would occur as a result of its creation.
>
>
>
> C. Therefore, *Evil is a knowing and intentional creation of God*.
>
>
>
> There is no wiggle room here, despite centuries of theological attempts to
> solve this disturbing-to-the-faithful dilemma by various transparent ruses.
>
>
>
> If God is omnipotent and omnificent, then it knowingly and intentionally
> caused/determined all things that happened in the universe from the point of
> creation onward including the acts of Dahmer and Duncan. To attempt to
> say otherwise is to deny either the omnipotence, omnificence, or both of
> God. This would be in effect saying: "Poor God. God didn't quite know
> or quite care enough about what it was doing and/or the consequences of its
> act of creation, and consequently bumbled a bit. Nice try."
>
>
>
> To further assert that evil does not exist is to deny the basic reality of
> humankind's experience and pervert the established use of language beyond
> credibility, and thereby call certain acts not evil, thus good, that most of
> us find extremely and horridly evil.
>
>
>
> There are many interesting corollaries to the consequences of the Problem
> of Evil – that God cannot be omnipotent, omnificent, and omnibenevolent.
>
>
>
> One is that the Bible (allegedly the Word of an alleged God), for example,
> acknowledges/asserts that evil acts do occur, and, in fact, asserts that God
> punishes and will eternally punish some people for their evil acts.
>
>
>
> {According to the Bible didn't Jesus show up because something went
> radically wrong with God's creation – the super-prevalence of evil? (Isn't
> this assertion about Jesus an admittance by the Christian followers of God
> that God admits that it screwed up and needed to find a way to unscrew
> things [which doesn't appear to have worked either, in fact seems to have
> been counterproductive] another contradiction to the assertion of God's
> alleged omnipotence?)}
>
>
>
> If this God is the omnipotent, omnificent creator of the universe and
> determiner of everything in it, then God is the determiner of all the evil
> acts and occurrences within it. Punishing someone for acts not even
> remotely within their control hardly constitutes omnibenevolence. Citing
> that punishing seven subsequent generations of progeny for the acts of one
> individual as an example of omnibenevolence indicates that such
> citers/believers are in greatly need of the services of competent mental
> health professionals and/or that their understanding of very elementary
> logic is egregiously defective, perhaps beyond repair.
>
>
>
>
>
> Another problem that arises is the promise of and the nature of an
> afterlife. If evil does not exist, especially in the eyes of an alleged
> omnibenevolent God, then the good (not evil) acts of Duncan and Dahmer would
> not be barred from heaven, but would be allowed. The horrors experienced
> by Shasta Groene could be re-experienced by her and others for an eternity
> to provide a paradise for the Dahmers and Duncans.
>
>
>
> If evil exists, then God cannot be omnipotent and/or omnificent. Hence,
> how can this God or any of its followers be confident that God can deliver
> on its promises of heaven and what will occur there, or even the correctness
> of its choices about whom will be housed there?
>
>
>
>
>
> Another problem with the assertion of omnipotence and omnificence of some
> alleged God is that it makes both entreating and laudatory prayer
> meaningless except as phatic communication.
>
>
>
> Why would an omnipotent, omnificent God ever change its intentions about
> the operation of its creation, the universe, when entreated by a
> much-less-wiser-than-God member of humankind? To do so would be a clear
> indication that God had made a misjudgment/error during the act of creation,
> and thus a contradiction of God's omnipotence and omnificence. Such an
> entreating prayer would be a gross insult to God, insinuating that God is
> not running things as it should and should heed the exhortations or requests
> of a much less knowledgeable human. Such entreating prayers are
> indirectly, but clearly telling God that he lacks omnipotence, omnificence,
> and omnibenevolence and that God better pay attention so that it gets things
> right.
>
>
>
> To say that God needs or wants praise or approval for his act of creation
> and its consequences is attributing to God a fundamental weakness of
> humankind. If God is omnipotent, and thus completely and totally
> confident and completely assured about all its acts, why would it crave,
> need, or relish the approval and reassurance of one small, clearly not
> omnipotent or omnificent being of its creation?
>
>
>
>
>
> A fourth problem that arises is the problem of faith in God's alleged trait
> of benevolence [or any other alleged trait]. If God is omnipotent (or
> even greatly wiser than humankind) then God could easily deceive humankind
> about its (God's) alleged goodness. To say that God could not deceive
> humankind would be to assert that humankind, or at least the believers among
> them, think that they are smarter than God and have him correctly pegged,
> clearly a contradiction to God's omnipotence. It also should be clear
> that asserting the omnipotence of some alleged God makes any other knowledge
> claims about any other of this God's alleged traits or intentions
> unverifiable in any way since this God could be The Great Omnipotent
> Deceiver, and therefore humankind would not be in a position to verify any
> other claims about God, or to refute them except by finding contradictions
> in such.
>
>
>
>
>
> So that responses to the above, if desired, can be discussed without
> irrelevant side trips and emotional pleas and confessions of faith, below is
> the main gist of the above formulation broken down by premises, inferences,
> and conclusions. Those disagreeing can then state by number which they
> disagree with and why.
>
>
>
> In what follows, if not explicitly stated, "God" should be read "alleged
> God."
>
>
>
>
>
> *Main Initial Premises.*
>
>
>
> 1. There is a God.
>
>
>
> 2. God is omnipotent (all powerful, can do anything it chooses, etc).
>
>
>
> 3. God is omnificent (knows *all/everything* there is to know, past,
> present, and future including the consequences/determinants of all its acts
> and all the conscious and unconscious thoughts and feelings of every human).
>
>
>
> 4. God is omnibenevolent (*perfectly* good, abhors and would not
> permit anything evil (clearly not good) ever to exist or to occur, if it
> could prevent it.)
>
>
>
> 5. God knowingly and intentionally created the universe as we know it
> and exactly as it is.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Beginning of Inferences*
>
>
>
> 6. If this God is omnipotent, omnificent, and omnibenevolent, and
> created the universe, then God is the cause/determiner of everything that
> happens as a result of its all-knowing and intentional act of creation from
> the moment of that creation. God was/is/will be in complete control and
> the determiner of everything at all times. To assert there is something
> that God is not in complete control of (something somehow left to chance) is
> to deny either God's omnipotence and/or omnificence.
>
>
>
> 7. Since God is omnificent, God had exact foreknowledge of everything
> that would occur/be determined as a result of its omnipotent act of
> creation. To say God didn't know exactly to a tee what would occur or be
> determined as a result of his creation would be to contradict God's
> omnificence.
>
>
>
> 8. Since God is omnipotent and omnificent, *everything* that happens
> in the universe was knowingly and intentionally predetermined from the
> moment of creation. Therefore, all future acts of humankind were
> predetermined at moment of creation.
>
>
>
> 9. If all acts of humankind are predetermined, then there can be no
> freedom of choice or so-called free will. If there are acts of which God
> did not have foreknowledge of, then God is not omnificent. If there are
> acts of which God is not in control of or the determiner of but are somehow
> left to chance, then God is not omnipotent. Therefore, the appearance of
> freewill is an illusion/delusion if God is omnipotent and omnificent.
>
>
>
> 10. Any act that occurs in the universe was either predetermined at the
> moment of creation or not. If God is omnipotent and omnificent then God
> intentionally and knowingly created/determined the universe to be the way it
> now exists. If there is something, like a human act which is not
> predetermined, but has been somehow left to chance (an unknown outcome),
> then God is not omnificent. If there is real choice, and thus an
> indeterminate gap in God's knowledge, there is not predetermination, and
> thus God is not omnificent. If there was no gap in God's
> knowledge/foreknowledge at the moment of creation, then all acts are
> therefore knowingly and intentionally predetermined by God.
>
>
>
> 11. Therefore all acts of humankind are predetermined and occur
> regardless of the appearance of choice/freewill, if God is omnipotent and
> omnificent.
>
>
>
> 12. If God is omnibenevolent (*perfectly* good), then every act that
> God has control over or determines would be good and not evil. God would
> not knowingly and/or intentionally perform or allow the performance of any
> act that was not good, that is, evil. If God is omnibenevolent (*
> perfectly* good), and thus totally and completely abhorrent to and
> completely opposed to evil, and this omnipotent, omnificent God was in
> complete control and the determiner of everything that happens in the
> universe from the moment of creation, then nothing evil would or could ever
> exist in the universe.
>
>
>
> 13. Since God is omnipotent, omnificent, and thus is in a position to
> unequivocally impose its omnibenevolence, then *evil does not and cannot
> not exist*. Hence, no acts by humankind are evil, but *all such acts are
> good*.
>
>
>
> 14. Since evil cannot exist if God is omnipotent, omnificent, and
> omnibenevolent, the belief of humankind holding that evil exists is in
> grievous error. Evil cannot exist if God is omnipotent, omnificent, and
> omnibenevolent.
>
>
>
> 15. Therefore, the acts of child torturers, rapists, and murderers are
> not evil, but good acts.
>
>
>
> 16. Further, since evil cannot exist, the acts called evil in the
> Bible, the alleged word of God, are not evil, but good. Therefore the
> Bible is in error, and could not have been authored, even by proxy, by an
> omnipotent, omnificent, and omnibenevolent God. Therefore, the Bible is
> not the Word of this God, but a grand, but not evil deception of God since
> there is no evil – everything is good.
>
>
>
> 17. The Problem of Evil occurs because many persons believe that evil
> exists, for example, the acts of child molesters. Since these acts of
> child molestation would not have occurred unless they were knowingly and
> intentionally predetermined by an omnipotent, omnificent God, then God
> cannot be omnibenevolent if *child molestation*, for example, *is evil*.
>
>
>
> 18. If evil acts exist, then:
>
>
>
> A. God, if omnibenevolent (*perfectly* good), could not have foreseen
> nor prevented such acts or God would have, hence God is not omnipotent
> and/or omnificent.
>
>
>
> B. God is not omnibenevolent in that God knowingly and intentionally
> caused/causes evil acts to occur since God, if omnipotent and omnificent,
> could have prevented such acts of which he was the determiner.
>
>
>
> C. Therefore, *God cannot be omnipotent, omnificent, and
> omnibenevolent*.
>
>
>
> 19. Once the premises are accepted asserting that this alleged God is
> omnipotent, omnificent, that evil exists, and this God knowingly and
> intentionally created the universe and everything in it, then it follows
> that God, given all the infinite choices open to it:
>
>
>
> A. Knowingly and willfully chose to create the universe in the way it
> now exactly exists, and
>
>
>
> B. Hence, this God knew exactly everything (perfectly, to the last
> watermelon seed) what would occur as a result of its creation at the moment
> of creation, and *evil*, as we now know it *is God's creation*, and thus
> clearly demonstrates that God is not omnibenevolent.
>
>
>
> 20. We are left with the unavoidable, but unpalatable-to-some
> conclusion that God cannot be omnipotent, omnificent, and omnibenevolent.
> We are then left with a host of problems created by that this clearly
> demonstrated insufficiency of God, if God as presently conceived by
> humankind, exists at all.
>
>
>
> * *
>
>
>
> Wayne A. Fox
> 1009 Karen Lane
> PO Box 9421
> Moscow, ID 83843
>
> waf at moscow.com<http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=waf@moscow.com>
> 208 882-7975
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com<http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Vision2020@moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110516/bebda9f3/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list