God & The Problem of Evil

Thanks for the link.
I read a few pages, it is on on the same topic of evil but the argument is different in the sense that I argued,

by default, God imperatively must be an absolutely perfect God, the ontological God.
An absolutely perfect God must be absolutely good in all senses, thus exclude any evil of any sense.
Evil exists [natural evils and human-based evils]
Therefore the quality of such a God is contradictory, thus God cannot exists.

I have argued, the idea of God is an impossibility, i.e. it is impossible for God to exists as real.
Despite the above, humans are compelled by psychological forces to believe in a God to soothe the inherent existential angst.

It is because the psychologically-forced-belief in God is based on its impossibility, that whatever subsequent argument attempts by theists to prove God exists as real will eventually exposed the underlying impossibility of God.

As pointed out time and time again, you don’t know what “absolute perfect” actually is.

I don’t see why an all powerful God can’t exist as a contradiction

The only exactly defining characteristic of God is that God has highest control. That is what makes a god, a god.

A god ≡ who/whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a particular situation.
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

Your imperfect ideas of what “absolute perfect” might be, are irrelevant.

And yeah, since logic is being ignored anyway, why not a logically contradictory God being that one above all others? Maybe God really can create a stone that God cannot lift, but miraculously lifts it anyway.

The evil is either denied or regarded as tests sent by God. So, either God (1) wants to repeal the evil, but can’t; or he (2) can, but doesn’t want to; or he (3) can’t and doesn’t want to; or he (4) can and wants to. The first three cases are, with regards to God, unthinkable. The last case contradicts the existence of evil.

We can give evidence or come to, for example, the following logical conclusion which is based upon physics and metaphysics: There must be a first mover, if everything is in move (this is not a real proof, but an evidence-based conclusion). Besides such an evidence-based conclusion, it is impossible to prove or to disprove God. And basically, there is only belief when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God. So, basically, theists and anti-theists are believers.

Pantheists turn God into the All (universe, space, nature) or the All into God.

Are you claiming I don’t know but you know what “absolute perfect” actually is?
Your ignorance of the idea of an absolutely perfect God is due to narrow and shallow level of philosophical knowledge.

Note this basic exercise in understanding the meaning of words;
(ref: Google Dictionary)

The relevant meaning to absolutely perfect is related to the above, i.e.

perfect
2. absolute; complete (used for emphasis).
synonyms: absolute, complete, total, real, out-and-out, thorough, thoroughgoing, downright, utter, sheer, consummate, unmitigated, unqualified, veritable, in every respect, unalloyed; More

absolute
adjective

  1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
    synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
  2. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
    “absolute moral standards”
    synonyms: universal, fixed, independent, non-relative, non-variable, absolutist; More

noun -PHILOSOPHY

  1. a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

An absolutely perfect God is thus a Being that is absolute, perfect, total, complete, totally unconditional and unqualified to other things.

The “absolutely perfect” is reified as The Absolute, note this;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy

One criticism. See the highlighted text. The POE doesn’t depend on the proposition that God is “absolutely evil”. The smallest element of evil will suffice to defile absolute good.

Not sure of your point here.
My argument is, God has to be an absolutely perfect God, thus has to be absolutely good. Evil is real. Therefore God is an impossibility.

Note you started with a logical fallacy, i.e. conflation of different senses, i.e. equivocation of conflicting senses, i.e.;

  1. Physics - empirical
  2. Metaphysics - transcendent -non-empirical.

Sticking to the same sense, i.e. empirical, you will encounter an infinite regression, who created the ‘first mover’?

True, both non-theists and theists are believers but while non-theists rely on objective Justified True Beliefs, theists rely on psychologically driven unjustified and unverifiable beliefs [faith-based].

An absolutely perfect God has to be absolutely good which discount any possibility of evil.
When you open up for a God to be absolutely evil, would any normal moral person accept someone’s claim their God will commit evil, e.g. genocides of humans, force people to eat shit and whatever evil one can think of.

The fundamental of critical thinking is a logical contradiction is absolutly false.

Accept your point. It is implied in my statement.

Ultimately whatever God is presented in pantheism, that God has to be an entity, i.e. a Being with agency. The fundamental basis of the God of pantheism I argued is psychological albeit of a lesser degree compared to the common theists. When we push the pantheists for their ultimate meaning it [Being with agency] will be reduced to an absolutely perfect Being/God.

Some pantheist who do not dig deeper compare their God to something like “energy” [Physics] (which is pervasive and has potential) or they are hoping scientists will discover some physical empirical elements that they can equate with their intended God.
Because such a God is affixed with an empirical foundation, it will succumb to infinite regression.

In this case, the only way out of infinite regression is to resort to the non-scientific and reason out [without evidence] an absolutely perfect God, which inevitably must be absolutely good, thus no evil. Since evil exists, God is an impossibility to be real.

As I had stated your philosophical views are very shallow and narrow.

This is very limited!
An Ontological God which is absolutely perfect [complete, total and unqualified] will have the ‘highest’ control which no higher control can be conceived. This statement reflect completeness and absoluteness so that there is no room at all for any ‘smart alec wannabe’ to argue for.
Beside to assign God with only the quality of “control” is again limited. In this case, it can mean in control of absolute evil.

Throughout history, the various ideas of God had been countered and bashed by smarter and smarter rational non-theistic critical thinkers which impinge on the psychological security and comfort of the theists,

Thus the term ‘absolutely perfect God’ [ontological] is coined [by the smarter theologians] with the coverage there is absolutely no possibility of any room for anyone to counter it in whatever ways. But they are ignorant of the catch that turn around to kick their ass.

The reality is the idea of God is fundamentally driven by psychological factors where even rubbish [by pure reason] can soothe the existential crisis, so what we have is GIGO.
Whatever ideas of God are presented it eventually MUST end up with an absolutely perfect God due to GIGO. This argument is also presented by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason.

Presumptuous, childlike, and the exact opposite of the situation (typical for you).

  1. I said nothing about me knowing, only that you obviously do not, and could not know.
  2. Any ignorant ass can claim that everyone else is ignorant. Such is the way of ignorance - not knowing, but being stupid enough to presume anyway.
  3. You have proven yourself on many occasion to the be “philosophically naive” person that you accuse others of being (also very typical of the naive and ignorant postmodern children).
  4. Logic is currently beyond you, so any argument with you is pretty pointlessly like arguing with a dog or cat.

Gyahd. You really can’t even see that what you proclaimed and what I proclaimed are the same damn thing?!?!?
Geeezz… :icon-rolleyes: #-o

How can my definition be the same as yours when you stated;

I would not accept a limited point like “God has highest control” especially when I have introduced the concept of “absolute perfect God” which you had condemned.

I have just referred to the topic of this (your!) thread: God & The Problem of Evil (see above).

False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy!

The God of the Old Testament is one of the examples showing that God does not have to be good only, but can be and is evil too. The God of the Old Testament is more an evil than a good one.

No, you started with a logical fallacy (see above).

And I know that you are going to go on with it.

Q.E.D.:

False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy!

The fact that physics is the most empirical science does not mean that it is not also non-empirical. Mathematics, for instance, is closer to metaphysics than to physics, but it is needed in physics too. Mathematics is what you call “non-empirical”.

Objectivity is not typical for non-theists and not typical for theists. It does not depend on whether you are a theist or a non-theist. So, you are biased.

You are saying (in your signature) that you are “a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious”; you are suggesting that you are a non-theist. But all that is not true. You are either an anti-theist or a theist:


At least you seem to be very religious (see your most active forum: Religion and Spirituality [56.30%]).

False!
Reason: Your logical fallacy! (See above.)

The God of the Old Testament is one of the examples showing that God does not have to be good only, but can be and mostly is evil too. The God of the Old Testament is more an evil than a good one.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSjQTPoEfQg[/youtube]

I am aware the God of the OT is very evil but note the change and evolution in the NT.

My main point is theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God.

Theism has evolved from animism, polytheism, monotheism, towards an absolutely perfect God.

The NT is not explicit in stating God is an absolutely perfect God but the greater theologian thinkers are naturally refining the idea of God as an absolutely perfect God. Note St. Anselm’s and Descartes’ presentation of the ontological God.

The path towards an ultimate absolutely perfect God is inherent in the idea of God as driven by a very primal existential impulse as it is only rational no theists will accept their God to be inferior to the God of others.
My argument is based on this ultimate point.

Yours is very short-sighted and is proven wrong as above.
QED.

Mathematics is not a posteriori, but a priori which is still empirically-based. Note Kant’s proof on this.

There are degrees to objectivity. Theists beliefs has very low level objectivity. Theists relied on beliefs but theirs are not justified-true-beliefs that can be rationally justified, e.g. repeatedly tested by anyone at anytime with same ‘independent’ results, e.g. as in Science.

What kind of logic is that?
That is a fallacy based on hasty generalization.
A medical doctor would likely spent most of his working hours with sick patients. Would that make the doctor a sick person? It is the same for anyone who is fighting evil acts, they cannot be evil rather they are good.

It is only semantics, I have no problem being identified as anti-theistic but I prefer non-theism, non-theistic or not-a-theist.

At present I [adopting a Boddhisattva’s vow of compassion] have very strong intentions to counter theism because part of it is very malignant with its contribution to terrible evils and violence committed by SOME evil prone theists who are inspired by certain evil laden words of their God [illusory].

To convince such evil prone theists their God is illusory and an impossibility will destroy and ‘defang’ the very grounds they are relying on as duty to commit those horrendous evils.
The majority of theists must also be convinced of the impossibility of God as they are indirectly providing moral support for the evil prone theists hiding beneath the skirts of the majority’s belief in theism.

Hello Prismatic,

I think that this is simply an opinion, and one that lacks imagination. Ever heard of Yin/Yang? The other issue here is the way in which something IS good or evil. Are we defining good in an empirical way? Is it an objective thing? Or is it a perception? And then there is the problem of the observer, the judge: How can the finite judge the character of the Infinite? No matter the reach of our concepts and generalizations we are still judging from our own WTP, thus our judgment is never impartial about reality.

That is false outside of a very precise form of monotheism. If I am a polytheist, then my gods are stratified, probably, by levels of greatness, and thus not ever god has to necessarily be perfect. Then there is the standard of perfect and how it is applied. The perfect hammer is not perfect at every task, but perfect at its purpose, or hammering. Thus gods are perhaps perfect not because nothing greater can be thought of or conceived but because it fulfills its purpose, its nature. Perfect Omnipotence is not necessarily tied to our well-being (with every “evil” being defined as damage to such well-being), but conceived as such by our will to power, to borrow Nietzsche’s concept.