Which of the three attributes of Abrahamic God is less likely to be real?

[Lucian Hodoboc]

The Abrahamic God is described as having three major attributes: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. The problem of evil / the existence of suffering in the world makes the coexistence of these three attributes logically impossible. Which of the three do you think is more likely to not be real?

 

[Lees]

The Abrahamic God is described as having three major attributes: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. The problem of evil / the existence of suffering in the world makes the coexistence of these three attributes logically impossible. Which of the three do you think is more likely to not be real?

Omnipresence should be the third attribute, not omnibenevolence.

They are all real. There are none more likely to 'not' be real.

Lees

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Omnipresence should be the third attribute, not omnibenevolence.

They are all real. There are none more likely to 'not' be real.

Lees

So He's not all-good?

 

[Lees]

So He's not all-good?

Oh yes, He is all good. But, if your going to address the three main attributes of God, you should get it right.

Why? Does that mess up your argument?

Lees

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Why do apologists talk about the tri-omni of God if there are four attributes?

 

[Lees]

Why do apologists talk about the tri-omni of God if there are four attributes?

Why do you ask that? You said in post #(1), 'three major attributes'. You just didn't get the three correct.

Again, does that mess up your argument?

Lees

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Again, does that mess up your argument?

How could it mess it up? Does the fact that God is also present everywhere invalidate the fact that He could achieve the same goals with or without suffering?

@Lamb, could you edit the poll and the title and add the fourth attribute?

 

[Albion]

The Abrahamic God is described as having three major attributes: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. The problem of evil / the existence of suffering in the world makes the coexistence of these three attributes logically impossible. Which of the three do you think is more likely to not be real?

What's actually "logically impossible" is God not being omnipotent simply because he allows evil to exist.

 

[Lees]

How could it mess it up? Does the fact that God is also present everywhere invalidate the fact that He could achieve the same goals with or without suffering?

@Lamb, could you edit the poll and the title and add the fourth attribute?

I don't know. It's your argument. Does acknowledging the 3 major attributes of God, Omnipotent, Omniscience, and Omnipresence, mess up your argument? Apparently so since you need another attribute.

You falsely state that God "could achieve the same goals with or without suffering" as 'fact'. You don't know that. That's your reasoning. God does what He does based upon what He knows satisfies Himself, His righteousness. Nothing else will work towards His goal.

Lees

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

You falsely state that God "could achieve the same goals with or without suffering" as 'fact'. You don't know that.

The definition of omnipotence means that He can achieve any goals in any way. That is what being all-powerful means. The definition of all-good means seeking the optimum state for all creation at all time. The two are mutually exclusive in a world in which evil exists.

If God bases His actions upon what He knows satisfied Himself while disregarding the fact that said satisfaction could be achieved in ways that don't involve suffering, then He is not all-good. If His righteousness could be satisfied in ways that don't involve suffering (which omnipotence allows for), then it is logically incoherent for Him to not choose said ways, in light of His omnibenevolence.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

What's actually "impossible" is God not being omnipotent simply because he allows evil to exist.

I'm not following. Of course He can be omnipotent and allow evil to exist. However, He can't also be all-good and all-knowing at the same time.

 

[Albion]

I'm not following. Of course He can be omnipotent and allow evil to exist. However, He can't also be all-good and all-knowing at the same time.

It was my impression, from your earlier comments, that it was omnipotence that you were thinking is logically impossible so long as evil exists. But it you were intending to say that He cannot be good and all-knowing so long as evil exists, I'd say that this is similarly mistaken.

If God has a reason for allowing (note: not creating and supporting it but allowing) evil to exist (and I think you'd want to add "any unhappiness of any sort"), you'd have to find his reason for that to be evil in itself.

 

[Stravinsk]

The definition of all-good means seeking the optimum state for all creation at all time. The two are mutually exclusive in a world in which evil exists.

John 9:1-3
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

 

[tango]

Honestly, this poll looks like yet another variation on the theme that essentially claims little more than "God doesn't do what I think God should do, therefore God isn't who people say he is."

 

[tango]

The definition of omnipotence means that He can achieve any goals in any way. That is what being all-powerful means. The definition of all-good means seeking the optimum state for all creation at all time. The two are mutually exclusive in a world in which evil exists.

If God bases His actions upon what He knows satisfied Himself while disregarding the fact that said satisfaction could be achieved in ways that don't involve suffering, then He is not all-good. If His righteousness could be satisfied in ways that don't involve suffering (which omnipotence allows for), then it is logically incoherent for Him to not choose said ways, in light of His omnibenevolence.

If you want to play semantics then God can't possibly be all-powerful, period.

If God can create an object so large he can't move it then he's not all-powerful because he can't move the object. If God can't create such an object then he's not all-powerful because he can't create it. Neener neener. You might as well argue that God can't create a square circle or some other thing that doesn't fit into what we want things to be.

You can take all the things you might like God to do and as soon as you add free will into the equation everything gets muddy. If I have free will that means I can hit you with a big stick, which will cause you suffering. What do you propose God do about this situation? God could take away my free will, which would mean that any concept of loving God would be meaningless because there was no option to not love God. Maybe God could take away big sticks, or make sticks soft and bendy, but then I'll just find something else to hit you with. So perhaps God could overrule any sense of free will but chooses not to because the primary purpose is for us to freely love him (where the option to not love him, or to hate him, or to curse him, or whatever else are just as freely available). If the only way for God to be "good" to you (as you are apparently defining it) is to not be "good" to me, then we're back to square circles and immovable objects and all the rest of it.

 

[Albion]

If you want to play semantics then God can't possibly be all-powerful, period.

If God can create an object so large he can't move it then he's not all-powerful because he can't move the object. If God can't create such an object then he's not all-powerful because he can't create it. Neener neener. You might as well argue that God can't create a square circle or some other thing that doesn't fit into what we want things to be.

You can take all the things you might like God to do and as soon as you add free will into the equation everything gets muddy.

and that's at the heart of this controversy. We are told in Scripture that God chose to give men free will. Had he chosen to populate his planet with one more variety of plant or animal that simply was what it was programmed to be and do, he might have made humans differently.

Having given free will, God allowed men to choose to do wrong, and Adam and Eve then did so. Shall we say, therefore, that God is not good because men, not God, voluntarily chose wrongdoing? I can't see how that would make sense.

 

[Lees]

The definition of omnipotence means that He can achieve any goals in any way. That is what being all-powerful means. The definition of all-good means seeking the optimum state for all creation at all time. The two are mutually exclusive in a world in which evil exists.

If God bases His actions upon what He knows satisfied Himself while disregarding the fact that said satisfaction could be achieved in ways that don't involve suffering, then He is not all-good. If His righteousness could be satisfied in ways that don't involve suffering (which omnipotence allows for), then it is logically incoherent for Him to not choose said ways, in light of His omnibenevolence.

No, omnipotence doesn't mean that He can achieve any goal by any method. It means He can achieve any goal. You don't get to appoint the way God does it. God's way always works. You don't like it. You couldn't add to it or take away from it. All you can do is sit and complain about God.

That God is good and evil exists in the world doesn't affect the goodness of God. Evil exists in the world for a purpose wrought by God. You fail to understand that God doesn't do the good. What God does is good. If God heals, it is good. If God causes suffering, it is good.

Again, you assume there are other ways for God to do what He has done, which you have no way of knowing. God's ways always work. God's righteousness could not be satisfied any other way than an innocent dying in place for the guilty. The Cross, suffering, and death of Christ, was from the goodness of God.

It is impossible for God to allow any into Heaven who are not covered by the Blood of Jesus Christ.

God's omnipotence and goodness are not in conflict. But they both are hated by you. God didn't do it some other way you think He should have. How silly.

Lees

 

[Lees]

If you want to play semantics then God can't possibly be all-powerful, period.

If God can create an object so large he can't move it then he's not all-powerful because he can't move the object. If God can't create such an object then he's not all-powerful because he can't create it. Neener neener. You might as well argue that God can't create a square circle or some other thing that doesn't fit into what we want things to be.

You can take all the things you might like God to do and as soon as you add free will into the equation everything gets muddy. If I have free will that means I can hit you with a big stick, which will cause you suffering. What do you propose God do about this situation? God could take away my free will, which would mean that any concept of loving God would be meaningless because there was no option to not love God. Maybe God could take away big sticks, or make sticks soft and bendy, but then I'll just find something else to hit you with. So perhaps God could overrule any sense of free will but chooses not to because the primary purpose is for us to freely love him (where the option to not love him, or to hate him, or to curse him, or whatever else are just as freely available). If the only way for God to be "good" to you (as you are apparently defining it) is to not be "good" to me, then we're back to square circles and immovable objects and all the rest of it.

Yes. All these arguments from unbelievers are to try and make God, not God. And God cannot cease to be God.

The 'object so large that He can't lift it' is often used by unbelievers. It tries to pit God against Himself. The truth is that God can create any object of any size, and He can lift any object that He creates.

Lees

 

[Lamb]

How could it mess it up? Does the fact that God is also present everywhere invalidate the fact that He could achieve the same goals with or without suffering?

@Lamb, could you edit the poll and the title and add the fourth attribute?

I added it to the poll.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

It was my impression, from your earlier comments, that it was omnipotence that you were thinking is logically impossible so long as evil exists. But it you were intending to say that He cannot be good and all-knowing so long as evil exists, I'd say that this is similarly mistaken.

If God has a reason for allowing (note: not creating and supporting it but allowing) evil to exist (and I think you'd want to add "any unhappiness of any sort"), you'd have to find his reason for that to be evil in itself.

No, I would not have to find the reason. Whatever the reason might be, no matter how glorious it may be, if God is omnipotent, then He could achieve that same reason without the suffering, and if He was omnibenevolent, it would be logically impossible for Him to choose the path with the suffering.