RE: Quantum Physics and Baha'u'llah
July 23, 2014 at 10:00 pm
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2014 at 10:26 pm by logicalreason.)
"Personal God" is a literary device, which means that it (the idea itself) is a literary or linguistic technique that produces a specific effect. It may also be seen as a motif, or theme in works of literature or religious texts: an important and sometimes recurring theme or idea.
"Personal God" isn't a real entity in or surrounding the world. It is just a product of human imagination or the mind. The closed door in my room, or the lamp sitting on my desk, or my pet fish George, has no concept of the idea "Personal God". Epicurus also makes an amazing observation of God's attributes as you quoted.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
[If God existed, He would not be able to because of "Free Will".]
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
[He is not able to violate free will because He is unwilling to take away free will.]
But this doesn't say anything about non-free will evil, such as earthquakes, tornados, diseases, child deaths, and other acts of nature and accidents.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
[From free will.]
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
[Agreed. Free will itself implies He is not God, we are Gods ourselves.]
But this only is about human free will. It doesn't say anything about natural disasters and accidents which have nothing to do with humans causing evil.
"Personal God" isn't a real entity in or surrounding the world. It is just a product of human imagination or the mind. The closed door in my room, or the lamp sitting on my desk, or my pet fish George, has no concept of the idea "Personal God". Epicurus also makes an amazing observation of God's attributes as you quoted.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
[If God existed, He would not be able to because of "Free Will".]
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
[He is not able to violate free will because He is unwilling to take away free will.]
But this doesn't say anything about non-free will evil, such as earthquakes, tornados, diseases, child deaths, and other acts of nature and accidents.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
[From free will.]
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
[Agreed. Free will itself implies He is not God, we are Gods ourselves.]
But this only is about human free will. It doesn't say anything about natural disasters and accidents which have nothing to do with humans causing evil.
