If you understand finitism then the "problem" of evil for an omnipotent being vanishes. You can prove this in just 60 seconds: https://maker.storyblocks.com/share/Fm4WR2OYA9xMNb_1
The "problem" of evil (why God doesn't often directly act to resolve problems with the world) is one of the most discussed things on IQfy but the solution is almost self-evident IF you remember that infinities can't actually exist.
That means a very important thing:
God can't just make the world as good as he wants, since that would be infinitely.
So God needs a completely different standard for making use of his omnipotence. Instead he can only take direct action to improve the world when direct action on his part is needed for good to keep growing.
So for something like, say, a car accident, God isn't able to have a standard for using his power that wouldn't allow him to act to prevent it.
Only for things that involve good growing in the world as a whole (like the original creation, or his Messianic plan) can he directly act in regards to.
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
>God can't
nice omnipotence
Indeed - it's called Thomistic omnipotence. You appear to be thinking of what's called Cartesian omnipotence, where any God is capable of any string of words, including things like "make 1+1= -347". (Source: https://www.pdcnet.org/pc/content/pc_2017_0019_0002_0455_0461?file_type=pdf)
Scripture advocates Thomistic omnipotence, not Cartesian omnipotence.
It says for instance in 2 Timothy 2:13 that God "cannot contradict himself". (source: https://studybible.info/Haweis/2%20Timothy%202:13). That's no quirk of translation, in the Greek it's directly "not able"! (Source: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_timothy/2-13.htm)
Saved
>"make 1+1= -347"
God can even do this, but he would need to redefine -347. The fact that he would "need" to change a definition speaks to your wonderful point of Thomistic omnipotence vs Cartesian omnipotence. In other words, unless I argue semantics, and start to worship the lords name in vain, I must agree with you.
There are no types of omnipotence lmao. This is pure christisraelite pilpul. You're either omnipotent or not by definition of the word. Omnipotent beings are not limited in any way. Period.
You know it's just a combination of letters, right? You're making a semantic argument rather than actually talking about some objective property of anything. The distinction between Cartesian omnipotence and Thomistic omnipotence is well known and, like the names suggest, this goes back centuries.
>semantics
Stop projecting. The word has a specific meaning. Your oxymoronic redefinitions are hilariously moronic
>The word has a specific meaning.
Which, itself, has further nuance depending on who is using it. I posted an image of and linked to a scholarly paper discussing this difference.
Unlimited power means unlimited power regardless of who uses the term. Your cope will never end
You seem to be a bit confused about what qualifies as a limit in the first place.
Think if God decided to make a number line. Is there any number he wouldn't have the power to make it stretch to?
Nope! A hundred, a thousand, a million, a quadrillion - he could do it all. Unlimited.
Is the fact he couldn't make it stretch to the highest finite number a limit on his power? No it isn't. It's the fact that there is no such thing; there is no such thing as a highest finite number and so it isn't something that can be on a number line. None of the numbers are the highest finite number.
>more pilpul
I don't insist a god exists, nor necessarily be omnipotent or omniscient. I find these kinds of paradoxes plainly indicative of its nonexistence tbh
Do you believe in free will or determinism?
It's anyone's guess
I see it as a paradox that does exist. I see them as both being true, that's why I asked.
>I see them as both being true
Well it's not a paradox at all. It's simply the acknowledgement that you can string combinations of words together that fail to actually refer to something.
>Unlimited power means unlimited power
This is called circular logic.
Fluglebugle also means fluglebugle. Can anyone tell me what fluglebugle is from this definition?
>Your cope will never end
Does this make him omnicopent?
You just got dabbed on kid
>god has to be le omnipotent to be god!!!
Atheists can't answer the problem of morality.
Them spamming the board about "le problem of evil" is just stupid. Most of them don't even believe evil is real with their mental disorder of moral relativism. Some of them take it even further and claim truth is relative. What reasoned debate can you have with such people? You may as well be talking to a dog.
>define words in a way to proselytize the blind faith religion of atheism and attack Christianity
>tip fedora
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
That would be a lie and confusion, of which God is not the author. You're already a dimwit who's only arguing semantics btw. And you're clearly completely ignorant of the Scriptures, so why do you even participate in these sorts of threads? You only make yourself out to be a fool to anyone who isn't as much of a fool as you.
>That would be a lie and confusion, of which God is not the author
Confusion: sometimes.
A lie: sometimes.
It could also be a flavor.
God is the author of flavor.
Everything else you said was an ad hominem.
It wasn't ad hominem, you're just a Godless SJW snowflake loser posting nonsense. Your ignorance of the Scripture is extremely evident, stop trying to save face and just go back to your "nobody general" on /x/, moron.
>ignorance of the Scripture
Can you provide and example?
>spoon feed me
Read the Bible, you illogical moron.
I'm not going to effort post for some lazy dumbass like you who can't even be honest with himself. Just do the world a favor and fricking have a nice day.
Honestly you're being very poor witness right now. It might be worth it to take some time to cool off my man. Remember 1 Peter 3:15 - "always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect"
I don't think he is sincere. He tells others to be logical, and then he uses ad hominems.
>completely ignorant of the Scriptures
Have you read what is said about the tower of babel?
Genesis 11:7
Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.
God does indeed author many languages.
>cannot deal with anything said in the thread
>"let's try to derail the discussion by spamming a tired old canard"
christian intellectual integrity, everyone.
>That means a very important thing:
>God can't just make the world as good as he wants, since that would be infinitely.
That doesn't answer why he though parasites were acceptable;as always christians make god less capable to excuse the problem of evil
Parasites could be one of two things, quite likely a combination of both depending on the particular kind:
1. Micropredators. Serving the same role as predators and intended to do so, but in this case effectively consuming prey in units of less than one. So a tick is serving a similar role to a spider, just consuming 0.000001 of a rat instead of 1 fly for instance
2. Degenerate forms of symbiotes or free-living organisms. For instance if you accidentally swallow a worm egg meant for soil, perhaps it manages to live as it absorbs the food you consume instead. Time goes on and generations pass and it adapts to this lifestyle, getting you something like an ascaris worm.
There was no predation in Eden and hence almost certainly no parasitism, so to say God thinks these things are acceptable is clearly not the case, since they weren't part of his original design and his plan is to restore an Edenic state where such things don't happen.
>wall of text of nothing
As expected
>There was no predation in Eden
The bible doesn't ssy that; also even if it were true god still knew what was gonna happen and created animals already adapted to their fallen diet; though that's just meme revisionism.
Saying "nuh-uh" isn't much of a reply anon. Do you see some issue with what was said about parasites?
>The bible doesn't ssy that
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 says "For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive."
Romans 5:12 says "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin".
And so on. There was no death originally and hence no predation.
>and created animals already adapted to their fallen diet
Genesis 1:30 says "to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food". Everything was originally vegetarian.
>1 Corinthians 15:21-22 says "For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive."
>Romans 5:12 says "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin".
>And so on. There was no death originally and hence no predation.
None of this talks about predation and as expected isn't stated in genesis but it's a later reinterpretation
>>and created animals already adapted to their fallen diet
>Genesis 1:30 says "to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food". Everything was originally vegetarian.
That doesn't answer why animals were still anatomically adapted to their fallen diet or why the sin of adam extended to them; if this is all you have I find it irrelevant. The idea that god couldn't do better is dumb
Besides we know for a fact that the genesis acvout isn't accurate to what life on earth actually developed so it's doubly irrelevant
>None of this talks about predation
Predators make things die when they eat them anon
>None of this talks about predation and as expected isn't stated in genesis but it's a later reinterpretation
Genesis says everything was vegetarian originally
>That doesn't answer why animals were still anatomically adapted to their fallen diet
Genesis 3:17-18 says, after evil is introduced, "Cursedisthe ground for your sake. In toil you shall eatofit all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shallgrow". Plants growing thorns began at this point and so did likely many other changes required for surviving a post-Fall world.
>or why the sin of adam extended to them
Death extends to everything in the universe. Even the stars are dying. This makes evil's destruction an absolute inevitability.
>The idea that god couldn't do better is dumb
What are your thoughts on the video's take on it?
>Predators make things die when they eat them anon
Not necessarely; if there was no death predators could just cut off a piece from a prey without it dying, you don't seem to think that much about your positions
>Genesis 3:17-18 says, after evil is introduced, "Cursedisthe ground for your sake. In toil you shall eatofit all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shallgrow". Plants growing thorns began at this point and so did likely many other changes required for surviving a post-Fall world.
Again more revisionism, thete is no indications animals were any different
>Death extends to everything in the universe. Even the stars are dying. This makes evil's destruction an absolute inevitability.
Cool but it still doesn't answer why adam's sin extended at all
And as said before all of this is irrelevant to what life was actually like;
>if there was no death predators could just cut off a piece from a prey without it dying
Does "At last my perfect world with no death where creatures become smaller and smaller scattered flesh morsels" strike you as reasonable?
Not to mention this is something expressly forbidden to even humans in Genesis. In Genesis 9:3-4 when God permits humans to begin eating meat he says "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life".
>thete is no indications animals were any different
Snakes certainly seem to have been made different in Genesis 3:14.
>Cool but it still doesn't answer why adam's sin extended at all
His sin didn't extend, his sin brought death, like 1 Corinthians said. Death and decay exist to destroy evil. Eden was a world of permanence: no damage, death, or decay. But the issue with such a world is if something comes into it that needs to get removed. Things can't be destroyed in a world without destruction. So it had to be introduced, and introduced in such a way as to ensure evil's absolutely guaranteed destruction.
Which current processes do. Even if it takes the heat death itself, evil can't exist permanently because of the current processes of decay which are leading to inevitable universal destruction.
>And as said before all of this is irrelevant to what life was actually like;
So I take it you believe in evolution instead. So you believe humans and apes share a common ancestor, yes?
>Problem of Evil
Why did God make it possible Satan to rebel?
What is done by the angels is always done to glorify God, even the fall which was redeemed through the Christ. Pridefully they assumed their children would wield the gifts only for glorification of the kingdom but we did not.
To convey the message, "STAY AWAY FROM HELL!" In hell, the light that satan brings is hotter than the plasma of the sun. It's a truly motivating force that you can not deny.
>why God doesn't often directly act to resolve problems with the world
This expression of it demonstrates how unwilling you are to consider the problem of evil as posed by actual philosophers. Just one of the more serious problems posed by the existence of evil is why God should create what he created foreknowing the extent of evil.
The image of there being a constantly growing proportion of good in the world (perhaps culminating in an Omega Point) poses serious problems
1. If it is supposed to be inherently theodicean if true, it would also allow an equally omnibenevolent God to make a world billions of times more horrible than ours, so long as it culminates the same. God “can't just make the world as good as he wants” - so how good can he possibly make it? He is highly constrained if everyone can effortlessly imagine a better life, and many have memories of a happier times.
2. It is not obvious that creation is a coherent desideratum for a perfect, perfectly good God if it is necessary that it takes the form of a primordial maximum of evil which attenuates until the condition returns to one equal to the primordial condition of an alone God, or one somewhat inferior to it, depending on your beliefs about the nature of afterlife. I submit that if creation must take this form, it is not good.
3. This worldview is very dissonant in light of the Bible, which portrays evil as growing in the world hardly mitigated by God. We are to understand that the world is inexorably heading towards a final desolation necessitating Messianic intervention. It raises questions about Satan - God ‘made use of his omnipotence’ to create this being, and it’s hard to see how it was needed for good to keep growing.
4. If God is truly so limited, almost all prayers are ineffective no matter your sincerity or the goodness of your plea. This worldview contradicts every doctrine I’ve ever read on intercessory prayer, it would seem to basically obviate it.
This is nonsense. The physical and mathematical laws of the universe allow for the avoidance of evil. Let’s assume that the world really could not be made infinitely good; could it be made MORE good? Even the common man can conceive of ways to make the world more good. A benevolent, Thomistically omnipotent being could easily make the world MORE good without making it infinitely good. If we were to arbitrarily decide the “goodness value” of the world based upon measurable criteria, and state that the current value is 10, then God could make it 100, or 1000, or 100000000, or any other conceivable amount, approaching infinity, but never really reaching it. But, in a glaringly obvious fashion, God is absent, he performs no miracles, he allows his children to needlessly suffer. And, after he neglects them in this world, which is bound by natural law and mathematics, when he is free from the limitations of a universe in which no infinites exist, he will subject some of them to infinite torture and punishment for finite wrongs. If there is a God, he is truly responsible for the problem of evil, and is seemingly vicious and himself.
>nonsense. The physical and mathematical laws of the universe allow for the avoidance of evil.
You can't understand evil tying it to the reality of evil to a sense of evil through logic. The mathematical laws might be able tonexplain it, but the starting point of your logic, the first premise, must be tied to your senses, otherwise, the logic will not mean anything tangible. The tangible starting point of logic is god.
>You can't understand evil *without tying it to the reality of evil (to a sense of evil) through logic.
I don’t quite understand how what you’re saying is a refutation of my point.
Would either of you mind opining on this?:
>Would either of you mind opining on this?
Whoever posted it doesn't seem to have watched the quick video in the OP, since its point is essentially that the matter they're discussing 100% answers why God rarely acts
Essentially the OP is opining on that post's questions
Good is not always increasing in the world. If God can only act whenever good is not increasing, then it stands to reason that the presence of evil decreases good (in other words, good is not increasing), and thus in every instance of evil god should be able to intervene! And, as
states, this interpretation of the world seems to be in opposition to scripture:
>”…the Bible… portrays evil as growing in the world”
>Good is not always increasing in the world
Spectacular question! This is where the Bible's description of what the resurrection will be becomes so important. Contrary to what pop-culture portrays it as where the Bible teaches your spirit goes to heaven forever, what it actually says is that at the end everything gets resurrected. Just like Jesus' body in the tomb was resurrected, the same will happen at the end. And not just human bodies, everything - the heavens and the earth, animals, stars, all of it.
This includes all of the good added to it. 1 Corinthians 13:12-15 says "If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward."
What you do, if it is good, will survive and will be added to the resurrected world.
So you see, all of the good that gets made never truly ceases; it's being kept in "cold storage", essentially, ready to be brought out when the resurrection comes.
>If God can only act whenever good is not increasing...in every instance of evil god should be able to intervene
More strictly speaking it's if good would stop increasing at all, in the world as a total. Like with the original creation: good can't grow if all there is is the best possible being (which can't be improved) and nothing, so he took action and created.
Or the Flood: the entire world had been corrupted by evil except for one single remaining family
Israel and his Messianic plan too. According to scripture the Messiah's resurrection, in some way, laid the groundwork for the general resurrection at the end, which for the reasons just discussed is essential for it to be true that good is increasing at all.
Alright, thanks for replying. It seems to me to be very arbitrary. The methods of intervention, and the points of intervention, do not seem to logically follow.
>A single family remains
>The family could still do good in an evil world
With this being the case, he would be obligated to wait until they died or were corrupted to be evil, right? It’s very much a “it ain’t over until it’s over” worldview, and in that instance even a single uncorrupted family could continue to do good until they or their descendants met their fate. Similarly, resurrection and the messiah seem to be arbitrary as well; as far as I can ascertain, people have been living and dying for at least thousands of years before the supposed resurrection of Christ. Why was Christ necessary to ensure an increase of good in the world?
>The family could still do good in an evil world
At that point it's guaranteed that if things continue, then that gets snuffed out. It's like if you see an ice cube in an oven: there's absolutely no physical chance for it to avoid melting, even if it's solid for now.
>With this being the case, he would be obligated to wait until they died or were corrupted to be evil, right?
Earlier is better - once he knows (which is pretty early since he's the omniscient best possible predictor) that it's going to stop, he can step in.
>Why was Christ necessary to ensure an increase of good in the world?
Without a resurrection at the end then good isn't actually increasing (as you pointed out!). According to scripture, Christ's resurrection laid the groundwork for the resurrection at the end. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 says "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead,the firstfruitsof those who have died.For since death came through a man,the resurrection of the deadcomes also through a man.For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive".
OP, do you care to remark on the seeming futility of prayer in this worldview?
If "he can only take direct action to improve the world when direct action on his part is needed for good to keep growing", then the only prayers which could possibly be answered are those few which plea for something God would grant without any prayer, assuming God desires "for good to keep growing" no matter if it is prayed for.
>Would either of you mind opining on this?
You mean some moronic fool who thinks he knows better than God? You atheists should seriously have a nice day, you're all subhuman trash.
Is there evil in heaven? If not, does heaven constitute an actual infinite?
Still no answer btw.
>Is there evil in heaven?
For sure, Luke 10:18 says "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" ans Job 1:6 says "One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them" (though technically it doesn't specify this was in heaven, it seems a reasonable assumption). If Satan is there at times then evil for sure is too
Is Satan currently in heaven? Will Satan be in heaven in the future? Was creating heaven without Satan metaphysically impossible?
>Is Satan currently in heaven?
No I think Revelation 20:2 has been fulfilled and so he isn't at the moment
>Will Satan be in heaven in the future?
Maybe, Revelation 20:7 says he'll return one day
>Was creating heaven without Satan metaphysically impossible?
Probably not
I see three definitions of Heaven.
The sky
The mind
Paradise.
If I think of heaven as the mind, then Satan (The accuser) is there. Accusations are necessary for an imperfect system. You have to question an imperfect system.
If I think of Heaven as paradise (utopia), and Hell as suffering (or dystopia) then Satan is like a spectrum, in wich he is 100% needed in hell, but 0% needed in Heaven. Everything in hell is cursed, and should be accused and rebelled against.
In all cases, to answer the question of, "is Satan in heaven" I see Satan as becoming an idea, or memory, or example of how not to be in Heaven. However, in Hell he is 100% real, and tangible, and you should listen to him, and accuse and rebel against everything around you, because that is the way to find Jesus, and when you find Jesus again, follow him back up to heaven.
Just for the hell of it,
>I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven
is easily glossed as
>I saw Satan fall, like lightning [falls] from heaven - i.e., the sky
That's actually a pretty good point!