The Problem of Good

[robvalue]

So God is all-powerful except for when he isn't.

Got it in one!

Whenever it's convenient, God suddenly has these arbitrary obstacles to work around, to make us feel sorry for him and that he's "trying his best". Some people won't make their mind up once and for all whether he made the rules, or whether he's working within rules that were already there.

Like most religious beliefs, it is malleable rather than consistent, so as to bend to any particular situation favourably.

[ApeNotKillApe]

It's the adult equivalent of claiming to be wearing invisible armor that absorbs all damage.

[orangebox21]

So God is all-powerful except for when he isn't.

God is all powerful except when you ask Him to do nonsensical things.

There's a yes and a no to that.  God is limited to act in a manner consistent within His nature.  So God can't sin, nor does He tempt anyone, nor could He do something that is logically incoherent.  Apart from that God is all powerful.

Apart from that being pretty ad hoc, there's actually no reason to believe that's the case.  If I tell you it is not in my nature to lie and that I cannot lie... is the only logical conclusion you can draw from that that I must be telling the truth?

If someone cannot lie, then he/she can only tell the truth.  The conditional is self-evident.  I'm not claiming that I justify God.    

I don't want to get too off track here but I'll mention two things here.  First, the punishment is established by the law giver, not the law breaker.  Secondly, how do you know that sinning against God ends at death?  Some people have openly admitted that even if the Christian God proved Himself to them, they still wouldn't worship Him.  Why assume this isn't the attitude of the unrepentant sinner even after death?

Yes... and there's still no reason to assume that sin is necessary, at all. If sin isn't necessary, neither is the punishment. If God can do anything but sin or tempt people, there's no reason to believe that his "plan" requires divine law/sin.

Like I said before, sin and suffering are a part of God's decree to bring about His purposes.  And one of those purposes is the revelation of God's mercy and justice.

Just out of curiosity, would your opinion change if the child was going to grow up to be a warmonger unlike the world has ever seen?  What about a serial killer who would kill 20 people?  15? 10?  5000?  What about someone who would grow up to reinstitute the worship of Molech (throwing infants into a fire)?

If the child hasn't done it yet, then why should God punish it with hell? I thought the whole point of the free will defense is that we need to be able to make choices, and that's what justifies hell. If the kid hasn't made the decision yet, on what basis is God punishing it? I mean, yes, God is supposed to be able to see the future, but now we're getting into hard determinism.

I agree that it seems inconsistent that God would punish someone for sins he/she is going to commit.

Which man gave God his nature and declared what he can and can't do?  It must have been the con man that created the God character in his image.

Who is this man you speak of?

So God is all-powerful except for when he isn't.

Got it in one!

Whenever it's convenient, God suddenly has these arbitrary obstacles to work around, to make us feel sorry for him and that he's "trying his best". Some people won't make their mind up once and for all whether he made the rules, or whether he's working within rules that were already there.

Like most religious beliefs, it is malleable rather than consistent, so as to bend to any particular situation favourably.

What sense is made in expecting someone or something to be what he/she/it is not?

[RobbyPants]

God is all powerful except when you ask Him to do nonsensical things.

Apart from that being pretty ad hoc, there's actually no reason to believe that's the case.  If I tell you it is not in my nature to lie and that I cannot lie... is the only logical conclusion you can draw from that that I must be telling the truth?

If someone cannot lie, then he/she can only tell the truth.  The conditional is self-evident.  I'm not claiming that I justify God.    

But that wasn't what I said. I never said you need to justify God, and I understand the tautological nature of only being able to tell the truth if you cannot lie.

What I said is that there's no possible way you can know that God cannot lie. The only way that can be communicated to you is if God tells you, and you have to trust that God is telling the truth; you can't actually know it.

Seriously: prove to me in an undeniable way that God cannot lie. Any proof you would bring could always be the result of some other deceit.

Yes... and there's still no reason to assume that sin is necessary, at all. If sin isn't necessary, neither is the punishment. If God can do anything but sin or tempt people, there's no reason to believe that his "plan" requires divine law/sin.

Like I said before, sin and suffering are a part of God's decree to bring about His purposes.  And one of those purposes is the revelation of God's mercy and justice.

But why is it necessary for him to show us mercy and justice?

That'd be like me letting my daughter stick a fork in an electric socket, then when she asks me why I didn't warn her, if I said "so you could learn a lesson". I mean, yes, that would teach her a lesson... but so would telling her.

And what are these "purposes" you speak of?

[robvalue]

Religious multiple choice test

Is the answer

(A) Goddidit

Or

(B) But free will

Both answers are acceptable for any question.

[dyresand]

God is all powerful except when you ask Him to do nonsensical things.

Nien god is not all power neither all god or all knowing.

[orangebox21]

---

Just as a recap, beginning in post#99:
You quoted me as saying:

I'm not sure what you mean 'need' but certainly it has been shown that sin is not without purpose.  If sin did not exist in the world then we would not know God's justice nor His mercy.

It would be irresponsible for sin to not be punished and I agree it would be unjust for God to do so.  That is why "He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."  This is the great exchange and we see both God's wrath (punishment of sin) and His mercy in the same event without violating His holiness.

I summarized these points in post#110 when I wrote:

God has a purpose for sin.  God has used the existence of sin to show His mercy and His justice and there is no clearer picture of that than at the cross where His wrath was poured out onto the Son and the righteousness of the Son was poured out onto believers.  This is the power of the death of Christ and the means of salvation to all who believe.

A summary you at first thought to be circular reasoning (#99) but later agreed was not (#116), although you still have a contention (#103):  

It's still all circular. You haven't even explained why we "need" sin in the first place. Keep in context that you're talking about an infinitely powerful god with an infinite number of ways he could have chosen to deal with.

To which I responded by challenging the premise upon which the question was based by asking (#115)

How do you know God had an infinite number of ways He could have chosen to deal with?

To which you responded: (#116)

Are you saying that God isn't all powerful?

We were then off and running on that line of reasoning.  I'm certainly happy to continue dialog shedding light on God's omnipotence.  At the same time, if the foundation for your belief is that sin is unnecessary because God has an infinite possible choices he could have made, then you will need to prove that knowledge claim.  Prove to me, unequivocally, that God has an infinite possible number of choices He could have made.

---

God is all powerful except when you ask Him to do nonsensical things.
If someone cannot lie, then he/she can only tell the truth.  The conditional is self-evident.  I'm not claiming that I justify God.

But that wasn't what I said. I never said you need to justify God, and I understand the tautological nature of only being able to tell the truth if you cannot lie.

Justify:  1.show or prove to be right or reasonable.  If you are asking me to prove that God cannot lie then you are asking me to justify God.  I'm not trying to argue about words here I'm trying to communicate to you what is meant by 'justify God'.  What then do you mean by prove?  Are you asking me to show to be reasonable, or prove to be right?  Something else?  

What I said is that there's no possible way you can know that God cannot lie. The only way that can be communicated to you is if God tells you, and you have to trust that God is telling the truth; you can't actually know it.

In the sense that I can reasonably know something, I would claim that I can know that God cannot lie.  In the sense that God is eternal and I don't know everything He has ever said and have no means to test and prove it, then I would agree with you that apart from God telling me and my trust in Him, I cannot know.

Seriously: prove to me in an undeniable way that God cannot lie. Any proof you would bring could always be the result of some other deceit.

If you are asking me to prove that God cannot lie I can't.  All I can know is what He has revealed about Himself.  It's the same as asking me to prove that God is all knowing.  The only way to know God is all knowing (to test to see if that were true) would be if I were all knowing myself (which I am not).  When Jesus says I am the truth, how can I know if that's true.  If the truth exists, it would be self-validating and there would be no way prove itself apart from itself.  So yes, some things I have to take at His word. 
This premise is common to all methodology relating to knowledge.  How do we know there isn't life on other planets?  On the one hand we have to claim that we can't know because to make such a claim would require us to have been everywhere and seen everything.  On the other hand, we can reasonably say that there isn't life on other planets because it has yet to be proven otherwise.  At one point we knew that the atom was the smallest particle in existence until protons, neutrons, and electrons were discovered.  If, at the time we knew that the atom was the smallest particle in existence, I asked you to prove it, you would have.  You would have proved that the atom was the smallest particle in existence, and yet, it isn't.

Like I said before, sin and suffering are a part of God's decree to bring about His purposes.  And one of those purposes is the revelation of God's mercy and justice.

But why is it necessary for him to show us mercy and justice?

I can't say that I have an explicit answer for that question.  We're essentially asking: is a world in which God has demonstrated His mercy and justice better than a world in which He didn't? 

That'd be like me letting my daughter stick a fork in an electric socket, then when she asks me why I didn't warn her, if I said "so you could learn a lesson". I mean, yes, that would teach her a lesson... but so would telling her.

In what Biblical account is a person not warned before his/her punishment?  Am I not here warning you not to "stick a fork in an electric socket?"  Am I not here warning you to repent?

And what are these "purposes" you speak of?

Just do a key word search in the Bible for purpose, decree, predestine, etc.  I'll note two.  It was God's purpose that Christ be crucified (Acts 2:22-24).  It is God's  purpose that salvation is freely received (Romans 9:10-18).

[RobbyPants]

Yes, and just because someone "reveals" that they haven't lied doesn't mean that he can't lie. Also, note that a lot of God's claims are non-falsifiable, so it's impossible to know he's not lying about those.

You have no reason to assume he's telling the truth other than you want him to be telling the truth. It's just wishful thinking. It doesn't mean he's lying, but you can't know it. Everything else you said was just shifting the goal posts away from me saying you can't know this. I mean, obviously you can't prove it. That's not the point; it's an unknowable claim, so Christians should stop making it. If they want to replace it with "I believe God only tells the truth", that'd at least be intellectually honest, but that certainly takes away all the punch from their claims.

[RobbyPants]

I missed this the first time around.

Just do a key word search in the Bible for purpose, decree, predestine, etc.  I'll note two.  It was God's purpose that Christ be crucified (Acts 2:22-24).  It is God's  purpose that salvation is freely received (Romans 9:10-18).

Now you've gone full circle. The purpose of sin is so that God can give us salvation from the sin he created in the first place. Without some other seed outside of this circle, it's useless and unnecessary. It's no different than me posting a sign reading "IT IS UNLAWFUL TO DEFACE THIS SIGN". I mean, that could be true and all, but if my goal is to not have that sign defaced, and if that sign is serving no other purpose... why even have the sign?

[orangebox21]

Yes, and just because someone "reveals" that they haven't lied doesn't mean that he can't lie. Also, note that a lot of God's claims are non-falsifiable, so it's impossible to know he's not lying about those.

And vice-versa.  

You have no reason to assume he's telling the truth other than you want him to be telling the truth.  It's just wishful thinking.

The only reason to know He is telling the truth is because He is the only one able to testify to the truth of the statement.

It doesn't mean he's lying, but you can't know it. Everything else you said was just shifting the goal posts away from me saying you can't know this. I mean, obviously you can't prove it.

Ok.  I disagree that knowledge is impossible, but I certainly understand your position.  The only way for it to be proven to you that God exists is for you to be as God is and since you're not God it can never be proven to you that He exists as claimed.    

That's not the point; it's an unknowable claim, so Christians should stop making it. If they want to replace it with "I believe God only tells the truth", that'd at least be intellectually honest, but that certainly takes away all the punch from their claims.

Given the previous criteria I agree that it is an unknowable claim.  And given your criteria I can understand your contention with the claim that "I can prove that God cannot lie."  Although I'm not sure that a Christian claiming that God cannot lie is the same as claiming he/she can prove it [according to your criteria].  And if you've understood my argument you'll understand that the two reasonable claims a Christian can make [and hopefully you're satisfied with] is to say that God says He tells the truth, and I believe Him.

I missed this the first time around.

Just do a key word search in the Bible for purpose, decree, predestine, etc.  I'll note two.  It was God's purpose that Christ be crucified (Acts 2:22-24).  It is God's  purpose that salvation is freely received (Romans 9:10-18).

Now you've gone full circle. The purpose of sin is so that God can give us salvation from the sin he created in the first place.

He didn't create sin.

Without some other seed outside of this circle, it's useless and unnecessary. It's no different than me posting a sign reading "IT IS UNLAWFUL TO DEFACE THIS SIGN". I mean, that could be true and all, but if my goal is to not have that sign defaced, and if that sign is serving no other purpose... why even have the sign?

I did not say that sin's only purpose is that salvation is feely received.

---

Please answer the question you've ignored twice.