God & The Problem of Evil

If you cannot attain perfect understanding of the perfection involved in a “perfect God”, then yes, you cannot claim that you have any proof against one. It would be like saying “The most intelligent person would behave like this…”, even though you are clearly not intelligent enough to know one way or another. And from what I have seen, your understanding of the general concept of “perfection” (as well as intelligence) is minimal.

I find your thinking very st…
If the above is your argument;
If you cannot have perfect understanding of yourself, then your thesis above is worthless.

Nice try, but even forgiving the non-sequitur …
One can claim ignorance and easily be exactly correct, but to claim perfect understanding, especially of perfection itself, is an entirely different story.

You have not shown any understanding of perfection. Several here have shown that your understanding of it is flawed. That means that you haven’t proven anything. And yes, the burden has been upon you this whole time.

This contradiction or - let us say - dichotomy is the way most people “understand” God.

Evil! Yes. :imp:

Whether God is evil depends upon one’s perspective. An “evil” means an “anti-life”. On the personal level, God might be evil, anti-your-life, but that is not the same as the macro-scale of being anti-all-life (“Evil” with a cap “E”).

And from the highest perspective, God cannot be Evil, else throughout the infinite universe, there would no longer be life (and never would have been any). Because of God, there will always be life in the universe … somewhere.

And that is The Problem with The Problem of Evil - “evil” is a matter of level of perspective.

The New Testament (NT) is very much different from the Old Testament (OT). The God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call “the idea of an absolutely perfect God” to a God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The “change” you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is “theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God”:

That is just not true - for several reasons.

Theism did not “evolve” in the sense you mentioned. Also, the word “evolution” should not be used when it comes to religion, because all religions we know are so much different that it has never been a linear or progressive development, no evolution in the sense of the also problematic evolution theory. So instaed of the word “evolution” we should use the word “history”. But that would be another topic. In any case, the “evolution” you are trying to see there, if we really can take it seriously, has absolutely not gone from animism towards a perfect God. Firstly, animism means that the ghosts or gods the so-called “primitive humans” believe in are already perfect, because they are (based upon) their own ancestors. They are so perfect that they have become totem persons and determined the respective taboos. This is an absolutely differnt kind of religion than, for instance, monotheism, so that we should not bring both together in your sense of an “evolution” from “primitive” to “progressive”. There is still animism in the world, and nobody really knows whether animism will end someday or not. Paganism is coming back. Polytheism is increasing again. Except Islam, monotheism is stagnating and will likely decreasing in the future. Secondly, the God of the Old Testament was meant as a perfect one, the God of the New Testament was not meant as a perfect one, but as one who has to share his power with his son (in certain societies it is the mother of this son; so this God has not only a son, but also a mother who is also the mother of his son! ) and with the holy spirit. So this development was just the other way round: from perfect to non-perfect; from what you call “the idea of an absolutely perfect God” to God who is not perfect but ethically good (whatever that means) and shares his power. The “change” you are talking about is an argument not for, but against your statement that there is “theism is inherently and naturally progressing toward the idea of an absolutely perfect God”.

So this is just another logical fallacy coming from you.

Also: Are human beings “evolving” towards perfection according to you?

Wow, “ultimate absolutely perfect”! All three words are not gradable, improvable! So, you just use them rhetorically.

Mathematics is not physics, not a natural science - that is what I am saying. And in English spoken societies: mathematics is not a science at all.

This can also be said about anti-theists (the other side of the “coin”) and about certain atheists, namely those who are ideologs.

This can also be said about anti-theists (the other side of the “coin”) and about certain atheists, namely those who are ideologs.

Again:

Prismatic 567 wrote:

Note that I said “you seem …”. I just used a bit statistics and made an assumption according to that - not more. Assumption can be, but do not have to be right. My assumption is based upon statistics, thus upon likelihood. But you should admit finally that this numbers are no lies and “say” something about your posting behavior and also, at least likely, about your real preferences.

But you are not an atheist, but an anti-theist. Most of your postings have shown that clearly. An atheist (I mean a real one) says: “I do not care about theism”. But you are one of those who say: “Theism is my favorite subject”. And the user statistics about you confirms this clearly.

So again: Cou seem to be very religious (see your most active forum: Religion and Spirituality [56.30%]).

Do you really not know the fact that there are evil prone anti-theists and atheists too?

Your logical fallacy again.

Note that there is no proof of the impossibility of God.

Yes. And just this is what he can and will never try to do - for several anti-theistic reasons he has. He is not able to admit that he is biased. Otherwise he would accept at least stringent definitions. His distinction between “relative perfection” and “aboslute perfection” is nonsense. Something or someone is either perfect or not. Perfection is not relocatable and not gradable, not improvable!

The perspective of those who wrote the Old Testament obviously required an evil God.

Hello Prismatic
I understand your argument. I simply don’t accept the premises, which is why I am arguing against the premises of your argument before even addressing the soundness of your argument, because when it comes to the problem of evil it is often human hubris that leads the way, man reducing everything to an extension of himself. With that in mind (and if you want to find Biblical precedence, use Romans), lets look at the following:

Lets imagine having this argument when the reality of the person in question is not in doubt.
1- Omar MUST be absolutely perfect-- (it says so in my resume?)
2- So that means that he MUST be good. (good at what precisely?)
3- According to our own laws of reason, Omar cannot be perfect at everything, if they are opposites. (I get pissed off from time to time; am I not free to do so?)
4- If there is any flaw then how can he be perfect. (Look man all I said on my resume was “I am That I am”. You are the ones talking about “perfect”)
5- We have found flaws in Omar…
6- Therefore Omar cannot exist. (But I do! Guy that did my resume simply added too much shit)

Six, in any case, only goes as far as disproving 1 and 2, at best, so we don’t know if God is perfect or perfectly good. If God is not absolute then He exists.

Evil is the total lack of good just as good is the total lack of evil. Such lack is essentially a human measure, thus finite; and it is not arrived by reason but by feeling (one feels that such moment is void of any good or of any evil).

As conceived by some, yes, but not everybody thinks of God in such a way. Hell, I say every concept of God is a non-starter.

I disagree with your conception of polytheism. In the greek pantheon you had Zeus as the most potent god and yet that did not mean that the other beings in Olympus were not treated and called “gods”- god of this, god of that, god of something else. This paternalistic view is still present in the Bible, covered only by the use of different terms. Thus you have Devil, angels, demons-- stronger than man but weaker than God. From that you can pass onto henotheism. To me theism in not the problem but monotheism. Monotheism has to deal with a multi-faceted reality with character to explain it all. Polytheism can bring (Zoroaster) twp characters to explain that multiplicity.

I think that the circumstances of people affect their conception of God. Satan was not the antagonist of God but of men…during their period of strength. In weakness and out of desperation, apologists emerge. The decline of a concept has little to do with its rationality than with the facts on the ground affecting the people who transact with these concept. As empires absorbed more and more people concepts began intermarrying, just as the people, creating a new form, not because the old concepts were inherently flawed, and recognized as such, but to accommodate the people of different backgrounds into a new whole. It is no accident that we celebrate Christmas on 25th December.

But you do understand that omnipotence does not lead to a problem of evil. The Unmovable Mover can be conceived as Omnipotent, yet indifferent to our fates, thus, no POE.

I wonder where you get the idea God is sharing his power with a son?? In the case of the NT God is still supreme overall but merely delegating power to Jesus in one sense.
I have stated, in the NT, God is not explicitly claimed as an absolutely perfect God.
However, later theologians [e.g. St. Anselm] who understood the dilemma argued the Biblical God is an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God than which no greater perfection can arise. This is to ensure the Islamic God [or other God] as claimed is not one-up on the Christian God. Ultimately all ideas of God has to be on par as an absolutely perfect God such that not one is giving away any grounds.

Note sure if you are a Christian, if you are a Christian and if you do not claim your God is an absolutely perfect God, then your god is inferior to Allah and Allah can easily command and control your God to its ass.

So the rational choice for any theists [who understand the dilemma] is to claim one’s God is an absolutely perfect God so that one’s God will not be dominated by another God who claim itself as an absolutely perfect God.

So an absolute perfect God is imperative and all theists when they are in the know will have no choice by gravitate to an absolutely perfect God.
But the catch is an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.

I had argued the idea of God arose from a very primal psychological impulse and that God [illusory] is an impossibility in the first place.
This is why no matter how you argue for your God [based on faith and psychological] will never be a possibility, i.e. an impossibility. GIGO.

If that is the case, then The God, as defined below, must be “absolutely perfect”;
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.

And now you have stated that The God is also known as Allah and is perfect.

But how would you know whether he is perfect one way or another?

I presume ‘Omar’ is a human being.
The basic premise is humans [empirical] cannot be God [transcendent].
So your whole syllogism above is corrupted and conclusion false.

Note theists claim their God exists as real and is self-sufficient, independent and created humans.
I had argued, to claim God exists, inherently, God must be an absolutely perfect God.
An absolutely perfect God must be absolutely and perfectly good.
Since evil [natural and human-created] exists,
Therefore God is an impossibility due to the contradiction.

You insist ‘evil’ is conditioned by humans and their interpretation.
However it is the same for the idea of God which is conditioned by humans and their interpretation.

Note a supplement (i) to my arguments;

i. Theists [Humans] claim God exists as real.

  1. then God must be absolutely perfect - as argued.
  2. Thus God must be absolutely and perfectly good.
  3. Law of Non-Contradiction, God cannot be absolutely and perfectly evil.
  4. Any elements of evil proves contradiction
  5. Evil [experienced by humans] exists empirically as defined logically.
  6. God is contradictory, therefore cannot exist

The element in 5 which is experienced and concluded by humans is consistent with the human-based premise in (i).

Omnipotence do not directly lead to evil as it can lead to good as well.
Note my P1 above, ‘then God must be absolutely perfect,’ which include therein the quality of omnipotence leading to God must be omni-good thus cannot be evil in any way.
Since evil exists, therefore God is an impossibility.

Note my reply to Amininius above;

I had argued the idea of God arose from a very primal psychological impulse and that God [illusory] is an impossibility in the first place.
This is why no matter how you argue for your God [based on faith and psychological] will never be a possibility, i.e. an impossibility. GIGO.

The very idea of God existing as real is cracked and shattered by the many researches that demonstrated the idea of God also arise from mental sickness [epilepsy, schizophrenia, etc.], brain damage, drugs, hallucinogens and other psychological basis. e.g.

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

Now that I have proven “God is an Impossibility” it will lend more credibility to trace the idea of God to its psychological base roots.

In addition, Eastern spirituality has already understood the same existential crisis and sickness that trigger the idea of God and they approach this psychological problem based on non-theistic approaches which has been very successful and without the negative baggage of evil elements in their doctrine to inspire evil prone believers to commit terrible evils and violence.

You are confusing many things here again. We are not saying that we need or want a God or something like that. We are just saying that your premises and your conclusions are false. So we are not arguing religiosuly, but logically.

You have proven nothing.

What you are doing is nothing else than advertising destruction, thus nihilism.

Why are you not simply saying: “I do not believe in God, and if others do, then I do not care”. That would be at least an honest statement. Then - and only then - you could justifiably claim to be an atheist. An atheist is not interested in theistic issues. You are obviously more interested in theistic issues than theists. So you are either a theist who deneies cynically to be one or an anti-theists who confuses anti-theism with atheism, likely also because of cynical motives.

Let’s apply your argument to things that actually exist:

All armies that exist must be perfect, otherwise a stronger army would defeat a weaker army. Therefore, every army that exists must be absolutely powerful and cannot be defeated by any other army.

^ Make sense?

There are some regions, for instance in South Italy, Spain and Portugal, where Christians believe more in the Mother of God than in God himself.

To those henotheists, that’s the point anyway. So, in reality they are not monotheists, but henotheists, because they always believe, if they are true believers, that their God is more powerful than the God of the others, which means that they acknowledge, recognize, accept the God of the others as the God of the others (!), which would be a contradiction, if they were monotheists.

Where did I “argue for” my (?!) “God”?

Again and again: You have proven nothing. Your statements show your nihilistic attitude towards others’ values and likely and unconsciously also your own values.

Not God is an impossibility, but the "proof that God is an impossibility" is an impossibility. And this impossibility is just the reason why humans or most humans have always believed in gods. It is a success story just because of the impossibility that gods are impossibilities, regardless whether they are perfect or not, regardless wether they are absoute or not. So your kind of God is possible too.

I differentiated ‘perfection’ between the empirical and the non-empirical.
I had argued the idea of God must ultimately be absolute perfection with perfections that are relevant to its essential qualities, e.g. omnipotence, and omni-whatever.

Only God by default ultimately must be absolutely perfect, else it will be dominated by another.

Armies are empirical based.
Being empirical based and conditional, there is no way an army can claim absolute perfection which is totally unconditional.
How can we establish an definition of a perfect army? It is in terms of total number of men, weapons, power of weapons and these keep changing in accordance to conditions, thus cannot be totally unconditional.
Therefore at best every army will claim they can do the best and wish to be superior but they cannot claim absolute perfection in every which way.

I have proven by reason and default, God is an Impossibility.

I understand at present theists are believing in all sort of forms of God based on ignorance. But when they aware of the dilemma they are believing in a lesser powerful God, they will gravitate to an absolutely perfect God which no other gods can dominate it. Point is when they avoid this inevitable domination by others, they MUST end up with an absolutely perfect, which rationally is an impossibility.

I understand believing in a God even if it impossibility has benefits to theists but this is primarily psychological benefits to deal with an existential crisis.

I’ll repeat the following posted in the other thread;

The idea of God arose primarily to deal with the terrible psychological angst suffered by all humans and more so by the majority.
While there is the above main pro and other secondary benefits from theism, it is double-edged and has its terrible negatives of evils when SOME evil prone theists commit terrible evils when inspired by the evil laden words of God in some holy texts.
At present humanity already has alternative non-malignant approaches [from Eastern spiritualities] without evil laden elements in its doctrine to deal with this terrible angst.
Thus if we have foolproof non-theistic alternative why should we settle for theistic approaches that has negative side effects.

It is because of the terrible evils, terror and violence from believing in an impossible God that we must convince theists their beliefs are groundless.

Suppose you meet a theist and he insist on killing you because you are from a different religion and he believe his God [to him is real] has granted him sanction to kill. But if that theist is convinced with argument that the God he think is real is actually false and impossible, then he will have no theistic basis to kill you.
This is the advantage of why the truth ‘God is an impossibility’ is good for humanity because it will prevent all theistic based evils.

You have proven nothing other than your own inability to prove anything.

And you have been given detailed explanation as to why. You have not been able to refute anything said against your feigned proofs.

Why?

What makes omni-[whatever] “essential”? In polytheistic religions, there are many gods who don’t have all (or any) of these traits. And they are not always dominated by the most powerful god of the pantheon. True, Zeus was the most powerful of the Greek gods, and therefore in a sense “dominated” over the others, but clearly the other gods enjoyed a significant degree of freedom–enough so that cults of human beings could worship them as they would any other god. ← This also goes to show that lesser and greater gods can form alliances with each other, just as lesser and greater armies can form alliances. Furthermore, even if the most powerful god was to wipe out all lesser gods into extinction, being the “most” powerful does not have to mean “all” powerful. The one surviving god may still bear certain imperfections.

And in what way is this not so for “unempirical” gods? It’s true that in terms of abstract concepts–like being all knowing–one can imagine a sort of limitless ability–such that for anything that can be known, an omniscient god would know it–but this is partly a consequence of not knowing, and not caring about how one would know, how omniscience is possible (just as you would be free to entertain the idea of an all-powerful army if you didn’t think you had to understand what that would mean in terms of weapons, money, political support, number of soldiers, etc.–an all powerful army would just mean: capable of defeating any other army).

And besides, there’s still a difference between being capable of imagining an all knowing god and the necessity of a god being all knowing. There’s no reason to suppose that just because you can conceive a greater god, that this or that god must be that greater god.

^ Are you bringing Anselm’s argument into the picture?