Benelovant omnipotence and the problem of Evil

Here's something I've thought of recently:

If a completley omnipotent and Benelovant God created our world (With evil) then does that not contradict the very fact that this God is omnipotent at all?

Omnipotence is something completly beyond all comprehension; it is infinite and all is possible. If any God were benelovant and omnipotent, then should it not be able to create a non contrasting world where life cannot suffer?

That is to say God is benelovant, though. Yet surely, is not the world we live in not proof that benelovant omnipotence does not exist?

A good point. When it comes to God (mostly the christian version) I don't think contradictions are all that rare in the first place. My personal belief is that the bible was INFLUENCED by God and written by man. Man makes mistakes, God doesn't. Thus is why I'm kind of picky with the bible in terms of what passages I acknowledge and which ones I don't. Going with this, perhaps the actual benevolency is something man made. Maybe God is actually kind of a punk with a bad temper (analogy, not fact, don't kill me).

Happiness can only exist if one achieves it for themselves and has something to compare it to.

See Siddhārtha Gautama - who would be Buddha- he had a life ‘trapped’ in perfection in his Palace, his father ensured no-one sick, old or homeless was ever in view and he had no knowledge of what was good, what was evil or what was happy or sad. He one day ventured out of the palace and experienced the plight of the poor, seeing those whom his father never intended him to see and with that founded a religion thanks to his longing to help and associate with the poor.

If we are always trapped inside a palace, regardless of whether or not there is pain outside, we can have no knowledge of what we are to be happy about. And our inherent curiosity and free will, that which encouraged Buddha to stray from his place of safety, is what necessitates our happiness.

Suffering is, unfortunately, with or without God, a logical necessity. If then you argue that the suffering we do experience is too great- again it becomes relative. If the most human beings ever suffered were a pin-prick, then we would have front page news every day 'MAN PRICKED BY PIN- FAMILY IN SHOCK' for that would be the worst. The fact there always is a 'worse' means we can always see the silver lining, and again our happiness becomes relative to our experience.

I do not take Genesis literally in the slightest, however I do see it as a great insight into our development as a human mind. We are, arguably, given the option to have a life without pain, without any suffering- Buddha was- yet his curiosity led him to go take a bite of the proverbial apple.

We may complain about suffering when it is not our own fault that we encounter it- but on the other hand we surely know that even if it were entirely our choice our curiosity and inherent free will would demand us to experience it.

And this is why I'm happy to put my faith that whatever level of suffering I succumb to- personally, I seem likely to die of Kidney cancer knowing my family- or whatever amount of suffering the world gets to- at least I know what it is to be happy- it's not a 'theory' or an 'assumption'. I know happiness because I know the absence of it, and whatever choices God has made in the implication of suffering to our lives of free will, influence by others' free will, the physical properties of the world or just blind bad luck at times, is all there to show us who we really are and it is the ‘perfect amount’ for our human needs and emotions- surely of all beings God should know more than us! Like a father who knows better than his kids, yet even they don’t listen!

Buddha experienced suffering of others and helped the world at his own expense- voluntarily removing himself from 'perfect happiness'.
What do we do when we experience it involuntarily? I think we should learn.

Besides-

It can always be worse!

Originally Posted by River Zora

Happiness can only exist if one achieves it for themselves and has something to compare it to.

See Siddhārtha Gautama - who would be Buddha- he had a life ‘trapped’ in perfection in his Palace, his father ensured no-one sick, old or homeless was ever in view and he had no knowledge of what was good, what was evil or what was happy or sad. He one day ventured out of the palace and experienced the plight of the poor, seeing those whom his father never intended him to see and with that founded a religion thanks to his longing to help and associate with the poor.

If we are always trapped inside a palace, regardless of whether or not there is pain outside, we can have no knowledge of what we are to be happy about. And our inherent curiosity and free will, that which encouraged Buddha to stray from his place of safety, is what necessitates our happiness.

Suffering is, unfortunately, with or without God, a logical necessity. If then you argue that the suffering we do experience is too great- again it becomes relative. If the most human beings ever suffered were a pin-prick, then we would have front page news every day 'MAN PRICKED BY PIN- FAMILY IN SHOCK' for that would be the worst. The fact there always is a 'worse' means we can always see the silver lining, and again our happiness becomes relative to our experience.

I do not take Genesis literally in the slightest, however I do see it as a great insight into our development as a human mind. We are, arguably, given the option to have a life without pain, without any suffering- Buddha was- yet his curiosity led him to go take a bite of the proverbial apple.

We may complain about suffering when it is not our own fault that we encounter it- but on the other hand we surely know that even if it were entirely our choice our curiosity and inherent free will would demand us to experience it.

And this is why I'm happy to put my faith that whatever level of suffering I succumb to- personally, I seem likely to die of Kidney cancer knowing my family- or whatever amount of suffering the world gets to- at least I know what it is to be happy- it's not a 'theory' or an 'assumption'. I know happiness because I know the absence of it, and whatever choices God has made in the implication of suffering to our lives of free will, influence by others' free will, the physical properties of the world or just blind bad luck at times, is all there to show us who we really are and it is the ‘perfect amount’ for our human needs and emotions- surely of all beings God should know more than us! Like a father who knows better than his kids, yet even they don’t listen!

Buddha experienced suffering of others and helped the world at his own expense- voluntarily removing himself from 'perfect happiness'.
What do we do when we experience it involuntarily? I think we should learn.

Besides-

It can always be worse!

*Applaud

That was an amazing post, but an Omnipotent being is capable of granting happiness ever greater than that, as an omnipotent being can change the laws of reality.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

That was an amazing post, but an Omnipotent being is capable of granting happiness ever greater than that, as an omnipotent being can change the laws of reality.

Only if you define reality. Reality is something that's supposed to be set in stone, if you can change it, it's not reality. Also, that would be really REALLY cool.

Then your argument instead becomes 'Why didn't he make the universe different' and more importantly 'Why did he not make our perceptions different'.

My argument remains that he couldn't without restricting our own free will. As soon as you affect the human mind so far as to remove curiosity we lose what is us. I don't want to be something so autonomous farmore than a pain-free human being.

So far as I am concerned, this is THE perfect level of suffering. Why do I suspect this? Because I don't know. The only person who could know such things is God, thus God must have set them.

If there is God at all.

But I am not arguing 'IF' there's God, only showing that it is logically possible for there to be one based on the Problem of Suffering, making it cease to be an issue regarding His potential existence.

^So it is from evil that more good can grow forth?
This is what your argument is sounding like, yes?
also that it is not from God that evil was created but rather from the gift/curse of free will bestowed upon Adam, the Archangels, and other such beings that they choose not-Good. thus it is how all those beings have chosen to use god's gifts that has brought evil into existence.



Thus evil technically doesn't exist but is rather the absence of good, much in the same manner that cold technically doesn't exist but is merely a descriptor for what can also be called a lack of heat in thermodynamics, yes?

but are you saying that evil doesn't exist or that the absence of good is real?

regardless, it still begs the question as to why God wouldn't just create a world where all is Good and there is no perceivable lack of it.

couldn't that world hypothetically exist even without relinquishing the reality/illusion of free will?

I mean, if he's omnipotent, then he KNEW that the talking snake was curiosity/temptation/desire personified and that eve would listen to it, thus leading to the fall of man, original sin etc......



The other problem is the seemingly endless variants on the omnipotent paradox.

The word "omnipotent" as is used in the west is quite fickle and the meaning varies from author to author.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, and others have all ascertained differing conclusions pertaining to the meaning of omnipotence and how it does or does not work as an accurate descriptor of the Western God.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

Here's something I've thought of recently:

If a completley omnipotent and Benelovant God created our world (With evil) then does that not contradict the very fact that this God is omnipotent at all?

Omnipotence is something completly beyond all comprehension; it is infinite and all is possible. If any God were benelovant and omnipotent, then should it not be able to create a non contrasting world where life cannot suffer?

That is to say God is benelovent, though. Yet surely, is not the world we live in not proof that benelovent omnipotence does not exist?

Suffering is the result of evil. Evil is the result of free will. Free will is the result of God wanting people instead of robots. Simple. If God created a world without suffering, it would have to be a world without people.

You also spelled benelovent wrong.

Originally Posted by Tsukuyomi

Suffering is the result of evil. Evil is the result of free will. Free will is the result of God wanting people instead of robots. Simple. If God created a world without suffering, it would have to be a world without people.

You also spelled benelovent wrong.

Omnipotence rules out everything.

Why do you say that?

Tell me why it did happen.

^So you want me to think for you?

Also your question assumes I think it happened.

You've ignored roughly 3 questions I directed at you in this thread. =P

Stop trying to antagonize and start trying to think before I call you sub-human and kill you for being a mindless android like in that one phillip K. Dick book.

Originally Posted by Tsukuyomi

Suffering is the result of evil. Evil is the result of free will. Free will is the result of God wanting people instead of robots. Simple. If God created a world without suffering, it would have to be a world without people.

What's wrong with robots that never sin though?

I mean really he wanted us to not bite the apple, but oops wait, he wanted us to bite the apple.

......

seems a bit whishy washy, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

Tell me why it did happen.

Unfortunately, he's not saying it did. You're the one who believes it didn't happen for sure. Don't use that as a cop-out.

Originally Posted by Francois Dillinger

Unfortunately, he's not saying it did. You're the one who believes it didn't happen for sure. Don't use that as a cop-out.

Then what was Eramus implying, then?

^Answer plz.

Alright alright okay I'll answer. Gawd, I'm not perfect 'ya know.
I don't believe in genesis becuase: It states that Humans were created from Mud by a diety. Which there is no proof of. It's also very spiritual and magical, the bite of the Apple etc. I also refuse to believe that Humanity and the Earth were in perfect harmony at one point in time; becuase this contradicts the very nature of the animals that were likely present in the Garden of Eden.

There's also no proof that god DOESN'T exist or that genesis didn't happen. So instead of taking a side, your mind should just blow up and you can stop using lame reasons like 'NO PROOF'.

Originally Posted by Francois Dillinger

There's also no proof that god DOESN'T exist or that genesis didn't happen. So instead of taking a side, your mind should just blow up and you can stop using lame reasons like 'NO PROOF'.

Yes, there is. The Darwinus fossil is a precursor to Homo's (at least that's what I think it is) thus, Humans were not soley created by a God- they evolved from another species.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

Yes, there is. The Darwinus fossil is a precursor to Homo's (at least that's what I think it is) thus, Humans were not soley created by a God- they evolved from another species.

Maybe, but as I said earlier, the bible was not actually written by God herself/himself/itself. Think about it, back when the bible was actually written people did believe in magic and whatnot and were quite interested/scared of it. So, why not through something in there to grab the peoples attentions? It IS possible to believe in evolution and God at the same time, the two do not really disprove each other. Evolution does disprove the idea that we were created as is back then, but it doesn't disprove God him/her/itself.

Originally Posted by sage_of_fire

Maybe, but as I said earlier, the bible was not actually written by God herself/himself/itself. Think about it, back when the bible was actually written people did believe in magic and whatnot and were quite interested/scared of it. So, why not through something in there to grab the peoples attentions? It IS possible to believe in evolution and God at the same time, the two do not really disprove each other. Evolution does disprove the idea that we were created as is back then, but it doesn't disprove God him/her/itself.

I meant to say that evolution is incompatible with Genesis, no reason why God can't exist.

I disagree. Evolution can go perfectly with Genesis, much in the way forensic science can go with Sherlock Holmes.

One is intended to be real, one is intended to be fiction for entertainment and allegory.

I honestly don't believe Genesis was ever intended by the author to be taken literally. It is an epic allegory and myth to show God's input and insight into much of the problem of suffering. Moreover, no part of the Bible teaches its own infallibility.

The story of Buddha shows that if one is kept far from suffering then one desires more from life beyond the lack of it. One can argue that 'God being omnipotent could have created a world in which this isn't the case, but the fact remains that it is and in this world in which there is suffering, God is perfectly congruous.' But that's complaining that he gave this universe the physical rules he has. There are many questions regarding the nature of this omnipotence, and when it comes to it- none of us can define 'omnipotent' beyond 'all powerful'- and we can't possibly comprehend what this is in theistic perspective.

If God exists and is all powerful then this has to be the ideal world with balance of free will, love, happiness and the suffering to countermeasure it such is our realm of logical necessity. We can't possibly question it for to do so is claiming we do not trust that a God we know to be benevolent and omnipotent to have created us in the best way possible.

It is an entirely fruitless debate for to partake in the argument one must accept the proviso of His existence, omnibenevolence and omnipotence, and to do so is to admit that he has done the right thing by default and continues to do so whether it be by our pitiful human understanding or otherwise.

IF He is benevolent and omnipotent, we know he has made us in the right way with the correct amount of everything. He has to have done- who are we to disagree with omniscience?

IF He does not exist, or is not benevolent or omnipotent, then we don't need to worry about our understanding because it is not the case and the argument ceases to be.

It becomes terribly circular to the point of if you believe and trust it's fine and if you don't then it's not, and so it will continue until the day we eventually find out!

My answer to this is free will.

As a deity, making sentient beings have no will but be absolutely good is not in the least a good thing. It is a restriction of the actions and thoughts on them and is meaningless.

However, with free will, one may choose to be good or evil. If you choose to be evil, that is up to you, but being good is something genuine that reflects actual and not programmed goodness.