So, these guys who disagree with you are what, Chad?  Not True Xtians like you?

http://www.raptureready.com/featured/funk/ooo.html

Quote:This term refers to the all powerful nature of God. Looking at Webster again, this is defined as “almighty power; unlimited or infinite power; a word in strictness applicable only to God.”  He is the all-powerful Lord who has created all things and sustains them by His Word  

OK, Chad. Can god still do acts equal to acts in the bible? Create worlds, raise mountains, part seas, flood worlds, destroy cities, give corporeal  life to the dead, ...................

To my way of thinking, if the fantasy were anything but a fantasy, god would be able to do anything equal to or less than those acts in the bible. The fact that god does not, only reinforces that god is a man made fantasy. The whole thing was made up make believe from the beginning.

(June 7, 2016 at 10:35 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:So really you are making the claim that God should not permit suffering as a result of natural disaster and it is illogical that an omnibenevolent God would do so. What "ought not be" "ought not be permitted". I am confused on a particular point: do you think God should prevent all natural "disasters", just those that harm people, or miraculously save people during such an event?

It would be trivially easy for a theodic God to construct a world in which natural disasters didn't happen without sacrificing any benefits. We might not even know they were a possibility, but when the problem of evil came up, people could say, 'hey, it seems like all the suffering there is, is what we do to ourselves and each other'. The very notion that an omnipotent being can't construct a planet that is more hospitable or people who are more durable is laughable. To explain the problem of evil for a theodic God requires a justification for allowing pointless suffering, not quips like it's unreasonable to expect such a being to work miracles or take time out of his busy schedule to save us: miracles and time are supposed to be the hallmarks of a theodic God. You can never be too busy or too preoccupied for anything if you're omniscient and omnipotent.

Probability doesn't enter into it, the difficulty is in reconciling the existence of the God of theodicy with a universe that doesn't seem to be the kind of universe a theodic God would be expected to devise. You either have to cut a leg off the tripod of theodicy (God can be omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent; pick two), or there has to be a justification for seemingly pointless suffering that omnibenevolence requires, and omnipotence and omniscience can't get around.

You are positing a unviverse that has no ability to cause human suffering. It is not apparent that having a universe with a set of natural laws can avoid natural events that can cause suffering. Something as simple as gravity kills an awful lot of people. Wind and water kills people. Where do you draw the line between what "ought not be" and what is permissible for God to allow to happen? 

Also, there is a bluring of the line between free will and suffering at the hands of nature. People decide where to be and live, people decide how to construct homes and vehicles, and people decide what to do in every particular situation facing them. It is not like there is no safe place. There are many places on the planet that provide protection from serious natural disasters. 

I do not think that omnibenevolence requires intervention to save human life. That would put safety at the top as the greatest good. I think there are at least two things higher than that: 1) There is the greater good of free will and 2) there is the greatest good of each person's knowledge of God. It is not obvious that a universe that achieves these could also be a universe where there is no suffering from natural causes.

(June 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote: So, these guys who disagree with you are what, Chad?  Not True Xtians like you?

http://www.raptureready.com/featured/funk/ooo.html

Quote:This term refers to the all powerful nature of God. Looking at Webster again, this is defined as “almighty power; unlimited or infinite power; a word in strictness applicable only to God.”  He is the all-powerful Lord who has created all things and sustains them by His Word  

First: that site your referenced doesn't contradict anything that Chad had said.

Second: what in Chad's posts, drew you to your opening remark? It seems that you are trying to pick a fight, and putting words in others mouths to do so.

(June 7, 2016 at 11:01 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:2. Christian doctrine increases probability that God allows human suffering as a result of natural disasters.
 a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. A natural disaster may increase that knowledge.
 b) God's knowledge includes the greatest eternal good (the maximum number of people freely choosing salvation from an eternal perspective).
 c) Man's knowledge of God is considered an incommensurable good (and end in itself)

NOTE: some of the bullet points adapted from a debate between William Lane Craig vs. Kai Nielsen

To conclude, I think for the above reasons, it is probable that God and natural evil can co-exist.

A doctrine cannot increase or decrease probability of anything. Things are what they are, regardless of what people are taught to believe.

I agree. I could have written clearer. It illustrates that there might be other considerations to discuss that would improve the probabilistic argument for God and suffering to co-exist.

(June 7, 2016 at 1:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Steve, I question the notion that natural evil is necessary for gaining knowledge of God. That knowledge could be inherent as in the case of angelic beings.  For that reason, I do not consider your premise for proposed theodicy a sound one. I find the free will argument more persuasive but only when coupled with the notion that because God is eternal He cannot have middle knowledge. For God there is no past or future. Every moment is fully present. So the idea that He knows what anyone will do in the future doesn’t make any sense. He only knows what potentials a free agent will actualize as it is doing it. To paraphrase something I read elsewhere – “God knows what we will do tomorrow, but he doesn’t know it today. He already knows it tomorrow.”

I don't think comparing humans and angels against natural evil give us any conclusions. A couple of differences:

1. Angels appear to have knowledge of God because of personal interaction since their creation (there was no time they did not know God). 
2. Angels are spiritual beings and as such, do not live in a universe full of things that can harm them. It is not clear that we can deny that experiencing, witnessing, or contemplating harm does not add to one's knowledge of God. 

We will have to agree to disagree at this time on the view of God's middle knowledge. However, I think that if God has middle knowledge, that strengthens the argument for permitting naturally-caused suffering.

(June 7, 2016 at 4:36 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 7, 2016 at 11:01 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: A doctrine cannot increase or decrease probability of anything. Things are what they are, regardless of what people are taught to believe.

I agree. I could have written clearer. It illustrates that there might be other considerations to discuss that would improve the probabilistic argument for God and suffering to co-exist.

Simply put Steve toss away the idea of a all loving and there you have it god and suffering co-exist.

I've never understood the objection that God's omnipotence is limited by the logically possible. Does it come from the bible? If so, where? God supposedly can perform miracles. That puts him above natural laws. Why is he constrained from violating logical laws? It just seems like something made up to avoid a theological conundrum.

(June 7, 2016 at 1:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: For God there is no past or future. Every moment is fully present. So the idea that He knows what anyone will do in the future doesn’t make any sense. He only knows what potentials a free agent will actualize as it is doing it. To paraphrase something I read elsewhere – “God knows what we will do tomorrow, but he doesn’t know it today. He already knows it tomorrow.”

That is one of the most sensible things about the mythical gods that I have read yet.

(June 7, 2016 at 9:03 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I've never understood the objection that God's omnipotence is limited by the logically possible.  Does it come from the bible?  If so, where?  God supposedly can perform miracles.  That puts him above natural laws.  Why is he constrained from violating logical laws?  It just seems like something made up to avoid a theological conundrum.

It is foundational to studying God that his mind and actions are logical and therefore (at least parts) can be known and understood. That would also move logic from something created to an intrinsic property of God. It would also follow that humans having the ability to reason is part of being "made in the image of God".