How can the Christian God have the attributes of omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresent and still be omnibenevolent. In other words how does freewill fit in? Also, Is freewill worth it?
Be more specific. What about omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence is contradictory to benevolence? What exactly are you asking? How God can be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and yet we still have freewill? Worth it to whom? God? Us?
God has an opportunity to stop evil and chooses not to. God has the ability to stop evil from even existing and chooses not to. Isn't that evil in itself? Yes, that's part of it. Both, either.
Kind of... http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128956&page=29&pp=10 Quote: Originally Posted by campbell34 God did create everything, but evil is not a thing. Evil is an act of rebellion against God. And there is where the confusion is. Your definition of evil is based upon moral absolutism. Freesmile and I are using a definition based more upon consequentialism. Even your definition of what is good and what is evil is dependent on theism. This debate is fruitless. Judaeo-Christian religions In the Hebrew Scriptures, evil is related to the concept of sin — "sin" translated in Hebrew is chata which means "missing the mark" (a term from archery). In Judaism and Christianity, evil refers to those aspects of human behaviour that are contrary to the Ten Commandments. Evil is thus directly correlated to disobedience: the Commandments are a guideline for "what not to do". In the forms of malice and selfishness, evil represents the socially weakening and destructive behaviors that lead directly to a fruitless life and death. On a more abstract level, "Evil" refers to the lack of faith in God, the end result of which is separation from Him. In many Abrahamic faiths, evil is personified as Satan, a challenger of the law or will of God. Satan is defined in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek writings collectively as the devil, the adversary, false accuser, slanderer, the counterfeit, a liar, a murderer, one with no truth, the serpent, the evil one, the tempter, and a lion prowling around looking for someone to devour. Evil may also be pesonified as spirits or demons who incite acts possess human beings and animals. Some forms of Christianity do not personify evil in Satan, but instead consider the human heart to be inherently bent toward deceit, although human beings are responsible for their choices. Note that "self" does not necessarily have to mean "one's self," but also to the various units, groups, and demographics to which one belongs (for example: family, school, team, generation, nationality, race, or religion). The Israelites asked for national repentance of sin while the Christians focus on individual sins. Jewish beliefs and Christian teachings say each person will give an account of all their actions, including faith and obedience. Some cultures or philosophies believe that evil can arise without meaning or reason (in neo-Platonic philosophy this is called surd evil). Christianity in general does not adhere to this belief. In the Bible, the story of Job is a bold example of how evil exists and seems at times to be victorious, although Christianity teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the perfection of God and the wages of that missing the mark of that perfection (sin) is death. It is believed that God is in control of all things, especially as its teachings show that Jesus conquered this evil, resulting in death, by being raised from the dead. For the French philosopher Michel Henry, God is the invisible Life that never stops to generate us and to give us to ourselves in its pathetic self-revelation. God is Love because Love itself in an infinite love is Life. By consequence life is good in itself. The evil corresponds to all what denies or attacks life, it finds its origin in death which is the negation of life. This death is an inner and spiritual death which is the separation with God, and which consists simply in not loving, in living selfishly as if God didn't exist, as if he was not our Father of us all and as if we were not all its beloved Sons, as if we were not all Brothers generated by a same Life. The evil peaks in the violence of hatred that is at the origin of all the crimes, of all the wars and of all the genocides. But the evil is also the common origin of all those blind processes and of all those false abstractions that lead so many people to misery and exclusion. In other words: According to Christian morality, God is incapable of evil. Defining consequentialism Following Broome (Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time, Blackwell,1991), it is common to hold that a moral theory counts as Consequentialism if and only if it fulfills two conditions: (1) Teleology Consequentialism is teleological due to its goal-oriented nature. It focuses on the outcomes of actions, placing emphasis on the ends over that of the means. In other words it is concerned with final causes. (2) Agent-neutrality Consequentialism is agent-neutral as it holds that value is a 1-place predicate of the form "x is valuable" as opposed to the 2-place predicate "x is valuable for Y". In other words, no specific person (or agent) is considered to be of more or less worth than any other. All agents are treated equally under consequentialist theories, and the person applying the theory is no exception (and therefore can't favor themselves over others). This leaves open 2 questions: (3) What is valuable or good (4) The precise relationship between goodness and rightness Taking Hedonistic-Utilitarianism as our example of a Consequentialist moral theory it holds (1) because it holds that right actions stem from the goodness of consequences. It holds (2) by taking the goodness receieved by agents to hold equal weight, irrespective of their identity. It answers (3) by claiming that pleasure is good and, finally, it answers (4) by saying that the relationship is a "maximizing" one as right actions are those which maximize the good (pleasure). In other words: Accoring to a consequetial worldview: God is capable of evil. I don't think we are going to come to any kind of resolvement on this issue.
So not really? Okay... I am going to brainstorm here, so please keep in mind that I am not quoting doctrine or anything. These are thoughts that are just forming in my mind as I type. Well, as you mentioned, the Christian God is omnibenevolent. It would seem that we would need to decide what is good, but I think that the argument would be kind of misplaced. If God is omnibenevolent, he is incapable of evil. Even in a consequentialist setting. This would mean that God could ONLY act in a manner that would result in the greatest goodness. So God would still be omnibenevolent. I am not sure that the two views are strictly opposed, though. I find myself asking whether it is possible that through specific actions that are in-line with God's nature and character (a.k.a. moral absolutism) we do not also arrive at the best and most fullfilling "goodness" available (a.k.a. consequentialism). God, as a timeless being, does not have to perceive things in a causal relationship. As such, from God's perspective, it is possible that the consequences are seen simultaneously with the precedences. A problem that I have with consequentialism is that there is no method for determining what is right or wrong at the time because we cannot know the future. And since we never know the what ifs, since we cannot know whether an action actually brought more good than harm, we cannot know in any real sense whether any action we have taken is good. However, God, having all knowledge (even "what would have happened") IS capable of determining the rightness of an action in a consequentialist paradigm. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of anything that would prevent God from operating in this fashion. However, we are still stuck with what is "good." Another problem that I have with consequentialism is that it kind of misses the point. What is good is determined by what brings the most X (where X means pleasure, happiness, or even goodness). So you can define X however you wish. This makes consequentialism more of a method for determining the rightness of an action than a defining principle for goodness. However, if God is, by nature, loving, caring, compassionate, just, merciful, kind, wise, and powerful, then perhaps it would not be a bad definition of "goodness" to use those unchanging characteristics as a definition of X. So, what is good might be, to a consequentialist, anything that brings the most of God's characteristics to the given circumstance and, depending on the scope, the world at large. I know that this isn't directly answering your question, but I would like to lay some groundwork here. Thoughts?
People always told me sin is the absence of good, God being all-good. So that does get in the way with his omnipotence. If He really is everywhere, sin would not be.
That's not one I have heard. Shane's definition above is accurate in the Hebrew. It means "to miss the mark". Sin is, above all, an honor offense, though. It is telling God that He is NOT worthy of rulership. It asserts that WE are in a better position to rule our lives.
Miss what mark? Isnt God good, love, all of it in the highest form? Then is to not do good, to do evil? Like he said, evil is fruitless, against God, its whatever God is not. But that cant be if God is all.
That's getting more into pantheistic thinking. You would enjoy reading the work of Benedict Spinoza (formerly Baruch Spinoza). Alsharad, i'm at work right now, when i get more time i'll get into your post, interesting thoughts though...
There must be plenty of stuff to read about him, seeing as he's from where i live. Ill look some of it up, thanks.
Check out The Ethics, it's a good read and i think it's old enough that an online text is available without much problem.
Why do you suggest that one? Ill just find a copy in the library, hate to read anything longer than a page on the computer.
It's his best known work and it sums up everything he was trying to get across. Plus, unlike many philosphical works of it's time it reads more like a textbook and is very straightforward (which was easier for me at least).
Oh good, i hate it when people just keep blabbering without making a point. It makes me curious and impatient haha
What do you mean, "in otherwords how does freewill fit in?" That isn't the same question. The question is, how can evil exist if god knows about the evil (omnicience), is powerful enough to get rid of the evil (omnipotent) and wants to get rid of the evil (omnibenevolance)? If he knows about it, can stop it, and wants to...why hasn't he? Now, free will has it's place in that debate, of course (but it isn't the same question). Many would say god doesn't stop evil because of free will, but free will is a point of debate itself. And even so, wouldn't we all choose to have no evil? We'd be backing God up in having him stop all evil. Shit, we ask for it all the time when we pray!
Mercy to those who fear God's love. Some are afraid of the light, so for their comfort, there is darkness (evil), which hides God's nature from them. I have a rat that is scared of being petted. Why? It just is. I love it, give it treats, etc. But it gets totally nervous about being picked up. It's getting slightly better now, but it really is slightly retarded or something. It doesn't get that it is surrounded by love.
Not if for whatever evil exist, God has a morally sufficient reason. Hmm…I answered this before, but it looks like that thread is no longer in these forums? I'll have to type it again. I would imagine that since God created the situation that it is worth it to Him. Is it worth it to us? I guess that’s a question you would have to ask yourself, however it is a bit trivial and irrelevant since you had no choice in the matter. Correct me is I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that on the basis of utilitarianism, God is capable of evil since He doesn't always bring about pleasure to His creation? If so, then the obvious question becomes, “Is utilitarianism a correct theory of ethics?” Consequentialism, and especially hedonisms is incredibly flawed in my opinion. For one thing, there is no distinction made between “good” pleasures and “bad” pleasures, so it becomes possible for evil actions to be carried out, and still be considered ethical. The actions of a pedophile, for example, cannot be condemned on the basis of hedonism since he is, after all, in the pursuit of pleasure, the ultimate good. Even with an altruistic disposition this cannot be escaped. Suppose there is a society in which 90% are pedophiles and 10% are children. The 90% fulfilling their impulses would result in a greater amount of pleasure, then if they were not to fulfill their impulses. In fact, hedonistic-utilitarianism would have the children submit to the pedophiles' vile impulses since doing so would result in the greater amount of pleasure to the greater number of people. This is absurd!! But this is just what this type of ethic supports! And if in an effort to save consequentialism, a qualitative distinction is made between pleasures (pleasure X is better/worse than pleasure Y) then a different element is introduced by which pleasure is measured (as C.S. Lewis said, you can’t tell that a line is crooked unless you know what a straight line is). This element would not itself be pleasure, but a standard by which pleasure is measured; an element that would be greater or more ultimate than pleasure itself. In other words, to introduce a qualitative distinction is to defeat hedonism, since doing so would admit that pleasure is not the highest good, but that there is some sort of absolute standard to which pleasure can be compared.
