r/theology • u/NewtonianVariant • 5d ago
Is God all-good
So my question is relatively straightforward but does require a little logical ladder that must be followed to understand it. Firstly, we accept that, even though God knows our past, present, and future, we have free will. That’s the basis of my question. God allows us to make our own decisions in life. However, logically speaking, He is an all knowing deity. That just follows from religious thought for the last several thousand years. So we can logically conclude that God knows an infinite amount of information about our reality in comparison to us. Now, to bring up the counterpoint. A parent knows almost infinitely more about reality than an infant does. This is, of course, relative. However, would an infinitely more intelligent parent allow their infant to do something that would end with their suffering. Let’s say for example, the child is playing with an outlet. The good parent would not allow their child to do that. Of course there is the argument that a child does not know, and is therefore not responsible for their deeds simply because they have no experience. Now let’s say the child knows that it is wrong to hurt the family dog, yet they do it anyways for whatever reason. A good parent would not allow their child do go down the path that would lead to their own harm (I.e. the mental outcomes of harming things as a child usually leads to darker actions in the future). A good parent would not let their child do this because harm would come to them either physically or mentally. Now God allows us to make our own choices that lead us to damnation. But He knows more than us of course and knows the horrors that await. A parent knows the horrors that await their own child if they follow down a foolish path, knowingly or otherwise. How can we say as Christians that God is all good given he allows us to follow a path that even a parent would not allow an infant to do. I am Christian and this is not any hatred towards Christianity, only a logical fallacy that I cannot follow. Any explanation or conversation on the matter would help.
4
u/adieue MA in Catholic Theology 5d ago
"Why does God let bad things happen?"
This question has been a source of debate for millennia and has been addressed in various ways over time. Let’s overly summarize this complex journey.
In ancient Judaism, bad things that happen were seen as direct divine punishments. If you were barren, sick, or poor, it was believed you had done wrong and God was punishing you. It was proof that you had "sinned." This perspective was eventually challenged in the Book of Job. Job did nothing wrong, yet all the misfortunes in the world fell upon him. The lesson? Misfortunes are not necessarily punishments. Perhaps God is testing you, and in that case, you should accept your suffering and continue to give thanks to God.
Then Jesus arrives, proclaiming that God is like a father. From there, things get even more complicated. As you said, why would a parent knowingly allow their child to suffer?
Different thinkers of the Church have addressed this problem, such as Augustine or Leibniz. None succeeded in providing a conclusive explanation, but some led to remarkable critiques, including Voltaire’s Candide, which mocks Leibniz.
So, after all this efforts, the fact is : It doesn’t make any sense.
And let’s not even get into other issues—like the concept of free will—layered on top of all these inconsistencies.
I am aware that this might seem fatalistic and perhaps overly simplistic, but I would still say that, objectively, according to pure and simple logic, we’re still stuck on this question.
Reality doesn’t align with the logic of our theologies.
Personally, I see two possibilities:
1-Our logic is correct, and it’s God who doesn’t make sense.
2- We don’t understand the logic of what God has created.
3
u/adieue MA in Catholic Theology 5d ago
I think this is for me? "So, regarding your possibility 2: Why would God give us a moral foundation based on logic that is inherently different from His own?"
From my perspective, possibility 2 might rather suggest that we have developed one or more systems of logic that, apparently, do not align with the one God established.
But that’s just my personal opinion.
What has struck me the most about this subject is something I once read about the Holocaust during the Second World War. I can’t recall the source, and I’m recounting this from memory.
In a death camp, the guards had organized a public hanging and gathered all the prisoners to watch. Among the victims was a child. Because he was too light, it took him an hour to die. Forced to witness this unbearable horror, someone exclaimed, “But where is God?!” Someone else replied, “Don’t you see Him? He’s there, at the end of that rope.”
This perspective deeply moves me. What if God experiences all this suffering alongside us?
Just one possibility among many others.
1
u/blaizej19871 5d ago
This, this is likely. When the question of why are bad things permitted to continue comes up I think about how it's His will that none should perish. How he is long suffering because he doesn't want to have to hurt and destroy the very creatures he wanted to live eternally with him. Nothing and no one made him make us. He did that because he desired a human family. He weighed the pros and cons and decided that it was better that we were than that we were not.
There's a poem that reads: My life is but a weaving Between my God and me. I cannot choose the colors He weaveth steadily.
Oft’ times He weaveth sorrow; And I in foolish pride Forget He sees the upper And I the underside.
Not ’til the loom is silent And the shuttles cease to fly Will God unroll the canvas And reveal the reason why.
The dark threads are as needful In the weaver’s skillful hand As the threads of gold and silver In the pattern He has planned
He knows, He loves, He cares; Nothing this truth can dim. He gives the very best to those Who leave the choice to him.
2
u/Brilliant-Cicada-343 5d ago
Assuming Genesis is historical (and I believe it is: Genesis 2:4, 37:2) we read:
“Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and tend it. The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die.”” Genesis 2:15-17
God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God has a prerogative to create the garden however He likes but the point is that God told Adam not to eat of it, thus the responsibility rests with him and not God at that point.
The far greater confusion lies in the fact of why God allowed Satan to fall and tempt them, as the NT makes clear they were tempted of Satan.
Besides the potential reason In Ezekiel (not sure how to interpret it absolutely) we really might not know why God allowed Satan to fall and then enter the garden.
It may be that God desired redemption enough (since it was predestined: Ephesians 1:4) that He permitted the fall.
(At work, more on this later).
2
u/cbrooks97 5d ago
Let’s say for example, the child is playing with an outlet. The good parent would not allow their child to do that.
Actually, there are many good parents who refuse to wrap their kids in bubble wrap and actually let them get minor, educational injuries.
Then there is the question of whether you can really have free will when someone is there magically stopping you from ever actually exercising that will. We are free to choose to obey God or not -- that is the only free choice that matters. If we cannot choose to disobey God, we're just robots or puppets.
-1
u/NewtonianVariant 5d ago
It’s not the matter of minor scrapes and bruises. It is the choice of damnation or paradise on the part of an uneducated party, be that people from the perspective of God or the child from the perspective of us parents. I agree on your part about wrapping a child in a bubble. There are necessary consequences to actions that must occur during development. But this isnt skinning your knee on the slide it’s life or death. At what point does the more intelligent party step in. So let me put it this way. We as adult humans can make a choice between heaven and hell via our actions. God allows this of course. But what GOOD parent sits back and watches their child shoot themself and k!ll themselves. In allowing us free will, God has (for all logical purposes) chosen to be the parent that does that. So the argument presents itself again in the question: “Is allowing us free will good?”. Now of course I am glad that we have free will and will forever be thankful for that, but the fact remains that there are no safety restraints. A parent wants their child home at a certain time for their own safety. When a child becomes su!cidal the parent gets them help and does not allow them to doom themselves. Why then does God allow us to do that when we (obviously) have only the barest concept of our own reality just as a child has the barest concept of their own life?
6
u/cbrooks97 5d ago
You're asking for free will without consequences, or basically free will without free will. You want a nonsense.
Now of course I am glad that we have free will
OK. This is the world free will gets us. Will it result in some being lost? Yes. Apparently the losses are an acceptable cost relative to the desired outcome, which is a sufficient number of people who freely choose God.
-2
u/HostileHyperborean 5d ago
If “God” cannot create a universe with free will without consequences(or evil) then that “God” is not omnipotent. So if he is omnibenevolent but not omnipotent he falls short of being the supreme perfect “One”(in the platonic sense of the term) who is all three in one, omnipotent, omibenevolent, and omniscient.
3
u/cbrooks97 4d ago
"If God cannot blimpsquik, then God is not omnipotent!"
As Lewis said, putting "God can" before nonsense does not make it any less nonsense.
-1
u/HostileHyperborean 4d ago edited 4d ago
“If god cannot” is not the same as saying god can, instead it implies a previous question of “Can God”. It is the other way around. We start from the apparent experience of evil then move our way into the “can God” questioning. Really slow down and process the epicurean paradox from an unbiased perspective, you will find it will improve your theology not take away from it. Also C.S. Lewis wasnt that great of a theologian, he was unaware of many of the crucial foundations and advancements throught history. This is why most people never make progress in theology because they neglect to research what may, at face value, be threatening to their worldview.
2
u/self-honesty 5d ago
If “God” cannot create a universe with free will without consequences(or evil) then that “God” is not omnipotent.
He did, when God created the universe, there wasn't any evil in it. People choose to create evil. Also God created Heaven, where people have free will, but they don't choose evil because they don't want to.
1
u/HostileHyperborean 4d ago edited 1d ago
This makes no sense. If “God” creates a Universe with absolutely no evil, the beings that share his spirit are capable of evil? Which also proves that he didnt create a universe without evil. Slow down and really think about this. Epicurus wasnt an imbecile and wasnt an athiest. He simply proved the gnostic position that the creator is not omnibenevolent and not the Supreme perfect being. That being lies outside of categories and is only eluded at by an apophatic theology. The most high God is “Not, Not”, that is all we can affirm. Meaning the creator that we affirm by his “works” is the imperfect one.
1
u/self-honesty 1d ago
This makes no sense. If “God” creates a Universe will absolutely no evil, the beings that share his spirit are capable of evil?
It makes no sense because of a question? The beings God created are capable of evil and there was a point in the universes history when the was no evil. There's nothing there that doesn't make sense.
Which also proves that he didnt create a universe without evil.
A question doesn't prove anything. And that isn't proven. I can create a Y that is capable of X, that doesn't mean as soon as I create Y, X has happened.
He simply proved the gnostic position that the creator is not omnibenevolent and not the Supreme perfect being.
He did not.
1
u/HostileHyperborean 1d ago
Wrong, your answer was “he did”. That is a contradiction because if you admit god creates a universe with free will and no evil why would there be evil in it? That logic doesnt add up. Just think about this a little deeper and you should arrive at the absurdity of a statement such as “the creator of the universe is omnibenevolent”. I dont say this with a tone or to be disrespectful, i mean this in the most supportive tone possible.
1
u/self-honesty 10h ago edited 9h ago
Wrong, your answer was “he did”.
You haven't proven anything I said wrong.
That is a contradiction because if you admit god creates a universe with free will and no evil why would there be evil in it?
Because people are capable of creating evil, because of free will. No contradiction.
Just like most people are capable of committing murder, yet haven't. No contradiction again.
1
u/NAquino42503 St. Thomas Enjoyer 4d ago
The parental analogy falls apart when you consider three things.
First, that God is not just a parent, and certainly not a biological parent to any other than Christ.
Second, that for human children, being of the same nature and substance as their parents, and being of equal ontological worth, and being the purpose for which the parents procreate, have the right to be parented, as parents have a duty to parent.
Third, that human beings are neither of the same nature or substance as God, not of equal ontological worth, and, not being the purpose for God's existence, furthermore having been born already in a state of separation from God as a result of the fall, are not owed God's gift. In other words, because we are not in any way like him, are not equal to him, are not the reason for his existence, and are born separated from him, it is not in any way an act of injustice for God to leave us be as we are. We are not owed salvation, nor is it God's duty to save. It is a free gift, born out of God's free choice, and his love for his creation, that he chooses to save us. God is a father to us by Adoption.
TL;DR: Human parents owe their children parenthood by way of nature, ontological worth, and purpose. God, neither sharing our nature, being worth infinitely more than us, and independent of us in purpose, is neither duty bound nor does He owe us salvation.
2
u/NewtonianVariant 5d ago
So on your possibility 2. Why would God give us a moral foundation in logic that is inherently different than His?
1
u/NAquino42503 St. Thomas Enjoyer 4d ago
Goodness is not measured by what makes you happy or what pleases you. Something is good according to its degree of perfection.
A tasty donut is a good donut; tastiness being the perfection of a donut.
Beautiful art is good art; beauty being the perfection of art.
A sinless human in communion with God is a good human; sinlessness and communion with God being the perfection of humanity.
God, within himself, has every perfection; he is ALL-Good.
This does not in any way mean that he must act "nice" or in such a way as to make you happy. It means that he acts according to his perfections.
1
u/Oil_And_Lamps 3d ago
I’d say it depends on the age of the child. New parents are 100% responsible for the care and harm prevention of their children (and young children are also incapable of grasping any idea of God - therefore if a young child is killed then I believe they are not damned; c.f. “age of accountability”).
However as the parents teach the child how to care for themselves, more responsibility is transferred from the parents to the child to care for themselves. Some say the “age of accountability” is around 13 (case by case basis) - this is when they reach the developmental ability to choose right and wrong on some personal and autonomous level.
So then it is now increasingly on the child/young adult to choose correctly. Of course this is muddied in poor examples and poor parenting, but we all universally grow into our God given autonomy/free will.
Therefore as we now have that gift of free will, it is up to us to use it correctly.
The Bible does say that the unsaved will be judged according to what they have done (actions, thoughts and words).
It isn’t spelled out, so it is possible, that some people, while “unsaved”, in the great white throne judgement, may be found in the Book of Life, and therefore not be damned. But what that may be based on, it’s not clear.
God is just and judges perfectly; I think on that day of judgement, nobody will be left thinking “this is unfair”. Those that are damned will be because they knowingly rejected God in some form, or knowingly betrayed their conscience, etc etc. Therefore in whatever small or large way, it was the person that selected their own destiny.
Just like when your child is 30, you can tell or suggest what they are doing is wrong, but they have full autonomy. Sure, the parent can still be a guide (and God is always available to guide)
1
u/RECIPR0C1TY MDIV 5d ago
I think the problem is that you are making a subjective statement and don't realize it.
Given that you seem to agree that our will is free (it is!), you are subjectively assessing that a parent not allowing horrible harm to come to their child is a good thing. I agree it is. HOWEVER, what if God has OBJECTIVELY determined that our world in which we can freely choose him is even better!
This would then mean that God allows horrible harm to come to people who freely choose to reject him because to do so is objectively better than a world in which he does not allow that harm.
0
u/NewtonianVariant 5d ago
You’re making an argument in which it is a so called “do as I say and not as I do” kinda thing. God can allow great harm to befall us but we as parents would be sinning if we allowed our children to choose great harm. It’s not a matter of minor scrapes and bruises, which would be good for a child to experience to learn. It’s a matter of eternal punishment on our part from God and possibly death of a child by negligence of the parent. If God has chosen that it be better for us to choose that, then what difference is there between God and a negligent parent. Again I’m not condemning God of course, just trying to follow a pattern of thought.
1
u/RECIPR0C1TY MDIV 5d ago
I get that you are presenting arguments not claiming heresy. Fair enough, you don't need to make qualifications or disclaimers each time. This is how argumentative discourse works.
What you are saying is true if we are talking about parents and young children, but it is not true if we are talking about parents and adult children. A parent cannot forcibly do something to prevent their adult child from doing something illegal which will harm them. In fact, we would say that a parent who locks up their adult child to "protect" them from breaking the law is harmful to that child. We even have stories of parents turning in their child for heinous evil acts like murder or rape.
So this is NOT a "do as I say, not as I do". We have the exact same scenario with adult children and parents as we have with adults and God, but a you noted earlier to a greater degree. As such, God has determined that it is objectively better to allow that freedom than to forcibly prevent it.
1
u/GirlDwight 5d ago
When children become adults they no longer need their parents for protection or wisdom because they are at an equal level. They can protect themselves just as well as their parents could, at least they have that potential. But that will never be true with God. He will always know more than us and we will always be "small" children in relation to him.
1
u/RECIPR0C1TY MDIV 5d ago
Is it about "equality" or is it about a general point of accountability? There is a point at which we are accountable and that makes no difference to equality. I am not equal to some adult people who are way smarter and stronger than I am, but I am still accountable for my actions.
1
u/GirlDwight 5d ago
We're all responsible for our behavior as adults, at least in the legal sense. But how "good" or not we are is largely determined by the limbic structures in our brain responsible for empathy. And our childhood and genes determine our brain at birth and how it continues to evolve during childhood. If we don't feel safe, we will likely employ one of two defense mechanisms. One is characterized by under-empathy and results in hurtful behavior. The other, over-empathy, which manifests as "saintly" behavior where one sacrifices themselves. The need to please others as a way to feel safe results in the brain evolving to make martyring oneself extremely addictive. The main contributor to which one a child ends up with is largely due to birth order. A younger sibling of a child with narcissistic tendencies will not be able to compete effectively using the same coping mechanism. That is because their older sibling has the "market cornered" on getting attention through narcissism. Hence, he will use the opposite strategy of people-pleasing.
Our brain's most important function is to keep us physically and psychologically safe. Once we reach adulthood and our brain has finished developing our defense mechanisms are set by the physical structures of our brain. The amount of good vs hurtful things we do is largely predictable. So I'm careful not to judge anyone for bad behavior. It's also important to recognize that sacrificial behavior is compulsive. We see neurotic traits with many Saints. So we don't start equally. Bad behavior just tells us suffered as a child. Same for behavior that's overly kind and self-sacrificing. I would think God would give us an equal start but necessarily in our circumstances, but our capacity for good and evil.
1
u/RECIPR0C1TY MDIV 5d ago
Notice how at the beginning of all this I started out with the assumption of a libertarian free will? I get it if you don't hold to that but my argument was predicated on what seems to be mutual ground between the OP and I. If you don't have that assumption, then there is no reason that you would agree with my argument.
You have presented an argument in which our proclivities are naturally determined by the physical structures in our brain. Cool. That doesn't refute me because it is a different starting place. It means we have to back up more to discuss free will. We have different assumptions.
I believe that mankind does have free will and the ability to put themselves into "a position of change". This is sometimes known as "indirect doxastic Voluntarism". It means that even if there are different brain structures we can all equallyish put ourselves into a position of change such that we are all equally morally responsible and morally able to follow God's law and not experience the harm that comes from breaking God's law. That world is objectively better than a world in which we are not able to do that.
1
u/GirlDwight 5d ago
You're viewing this through a philosophical model and in that black and white realm, sure everything you stated is logical. Doxastic voluntarism, whether direct or not is just part of a philosophical position that doesn't necessarily reflect reality. Rather it means we like to believe that we have more control than we do because that belief (like all important beliefs we hold including religious, philosophical and political ones) makes us feel safe and therefore become a part of our identity. Once our belief has merged with who we are any attack on it is interpreted by our psyche as an attack on the self. As an evolutionary adaptation, when a belief helps make us feel safe, we resolve cognitive dissonance by shifting reality instead of changing our beliefs. That's because once a belief has become an anchor for us to feel safe, it would cause instability and a feeling of loss of control if we changed our beliefs anytime we were faced with facts that challenged it. Our psyche places greater importance on our feeling stability and control then the factuality of the beliefs we incorporate into the self.
That world is objectively better than a world in which we are not able to do that.
I agree, the world in your model is better.
1
u/RECIPR0C1TY MDIV 5d ago
You're viewing this through a philosophical model and in that black and white realm, sure everything you stated is logical. Doxastic voluntarism, whether direct or not is just part of a philosophical position that doesn't necessarily reflect reality.
You are welcome to make that claim, but you don't get to assume it. You have to argue for it. You are still assuming determinism. You are assuming that our beliefs become anchors because they are caused to do so by our need to feel safe. Not to mention YOU are viewing this through a philosophical model of black and white.
I agree, the world in your model is better.
Hey, I'll take what I can get! :-)
1
u/GirlDwight 5d ago
Hey, I'll take what I can get! :-)
I like your style!
I'm not arguing determinism and I think I have shown that our capacity for good and evil is not as black and white as your model presents and we all wish. The brain's main function is to make us feel physically and psychologically safe. And we see this with our beliefs when we can't see any positives of the candidate or political party we love to hate. Likewise when we can't see any legitimate criticism of the ones we love. Once a position is incorporated into our identity, it's very hard to see objectively. This isn't just a theory. Our brain's capacity for denial in grief, for example, helps us process the trauma intermittently. Again, the psyche is protecting the self from reality. So, it may be impossible to heal a cluster B disorder. When empathy is underdeveloped, one literally has to change the brain after all the structures controlling the emotional response have taken over twenty years to grow and develop. We don't know how to do that yet. Hurtful behavior from people with cluster B disorders are reactions to them not feeling safe. From their perspective, their attacks would be catalogued under the "just war defense". It's because of the way their brain processes reality and sends danger signals meaning fight or flight engages. In reality there is no threat. These are the most primitive structures of our brain and they override the rest when danger is perceived. This part of the brain is located by the base of the spine so it can gather sensory information quickly and react. It doesn't allow a loop back to the slower cortex responsible for rational thinking. There is no time. And defense mechanisms are engaged to minimize the threat.
I sometimes wish this wasn't the case but it's equally amazing. The way our brain developed helped us survive. Because in the end that's what our brains have been honed for since the beginning of our ancestral species. People who develop cluster B or Cluster C disorders do so in childhood to feel a sense of control. This protects them in order to reach adulthood psychologically intact. But both are ill and we should do more to recognize that white maintaining personal boundaries to protect ourselves and our families.
0
u/TheMeteorShower 5d ago
Most people aren't children of God. So its not a good example when considering all people. Those who face judgement aren't His children.
2
u/NewtonianVariant 5d ago
You may use the word “creation” if you like. We are all God’s creation and our children are our creation.
0
u/rorris6 5d ago edited 5d ago
firstly, what your question is pointing at is not a logical fallacy. it's not a fallacy because only arguments can be fallacies and you're questioning an statement. it's not logical because your issue with this proposition originates from your experience in the material world, even if it's a shared experience, the fact that it comes from experience means it's not purely logical.
secondly, your comparison is not entirely accurate, and even then you're getting it wrong. we were in fact innocent and free of sin (almost childlike, like animals, even though adam had lordship over them). we didn't know better, so judgment wasn't needed. the original sin made us aware of good and evil (we entered adulthood and became fit to be judged)
from that moment onwards and until Christ's sacrifice we believed we could make it on our own, that we didn't need to be saved by our Father, that man-made law was good enough. Christ came to save us and tell us we can rely on Him, that we were not alone with the weight of our sins, but we are grown ups now. for God to save us we have to let Him into our lives first.
a common reoccurrence comes to mind easily once you look at it this way: a couple has a kid, they want the best for their child and they do everything to protect him. the child becomes a teenager who thinks he knows better than his parents, wants to be treated as an adult. rebelling, he does something so terrible that he gets kicked out of the house. filled with pride, the son decides not to talk to his parents ever again. one day, they both appear at his doorstep. his life is a mess, but both of them love him and ensure him they'll always be there to help him. coming back home is no longer an option as he's mature enough for that, his problems are his own and his faults won't be excused for his ignorance, but now he knows he'll always have his parents support.
this surely wasn't what the couple wanted for their child. just as God had higher hopes for us, but you can't stay a child forever. despite all that, He values our freedom so much that He allowed us to make our own mistakes. instead of forcing us to love Him, He expects us to freely choose to love Him
-4
-5
u/HostileHyperborean 5d ago edited 5d ago
Epicurean Paradox,
“God” or the “creator” of this world is most definitely not “all good”(omnibenevolent). Try reading “The Fundamentals of Hyperborean Wisdom” by Nimrod de Rosario.
2
u/blaizej19871 5d ago
This is elementary at best. Just because Yahweh knows what the future holds doesn't mean he should prevent it from happening. Also there is coming a day when Satan will be destroyed. Also in the old testament there is a part where David asks Yahweh if he stays put will the citizens hand him over to his enemies. Yahweh says yes and so David smartly leaves that city. Now that David left that city that future event didn't happen although it would have if he had stayed put.
1
u/HostileHyperborean 4d ago
I find it odd that not one reply has properly understood the paradox. 🤔
1
u/blaizej19871 4d ago
I apologize. If you still wish to discuss the matter I'm listening.
1
u/HostileHyperborean 4d ago edited 4d ago
The idea here is not that “God” should prevent future events from happening, it is more of why those events should happen at all. Why is there a satan(adversary/tempter) at all if “God” is omnipotent and omniscient? Why is there a test for us if “God” is omniscient? Why is there evil at all if god is omnibenevolent? Why, if he can, being omnipotent and omnibenevolent, doesnt he create an existence with free will and no evil? All these questions in the paradox lead to a negation of one of the three “omnis”. This proves that the “creator” of this world cant be the three omnis simultaneously and this is not mere speculation but instead stems from a direct observation of what we experience, the problem of evil. This doesnt mean that There isnt an all good “God”, this just means that the all good “God” has nothing to do with creation. This is what the gnostics meant by the demiurge being evil. This also resolves the problem of the “fall of man”, because those with free will are allowed to leave the presence of that ineffable and incognizable “God” to enter the fleshly created world which is inherently evil(having nothing to do with the uncreated omnibenevolent God outside of creation).
Summary of the negations (copied from wiki for the sake of my time),
1.If a god knows everything and has unlimited power, then it has knowledge of all evil and has the power to put an end to it. But if it does not end it, it is not completely benevolent.
2.If a god has unlimited power and is completely good, then it has the power to extinguish evil and want to extinguish it. But if it does not do it, its knowledge of evil is limited, so it is not all-knowing.
3.If a god is all-knowing and totally good, then it knows of all the evil that exists and wants to change it. But if it does not, it must be because it is not capable of changing it, so it is not omnipotent.
1
u/blaizej19871 4d ago
I see what you're saying. I just feel like there's some presuppositions that compromise things.
I'm confused because as I understand it the Bible sorts handles all of those alleged issues. For instance before Noah's flood He warns the people to repent for a very long time. When they elect not to He is pained at what he has to do. The thoughts of man have become basically evil all the time and they are acting on those evil thoughts. He feels deep sadness and has to dispense judgement. Because an all good God must not tolerate that kind of evil forever.
1
u/HostileHyperborean 4d ago
There are no presuppositions on the behalf of epicurus, he is dealing with the theology as it is presented. He is simply questioning the suppositions. Your examples are defeated by those questions of his, for example “He warns the people to repent….” Well that means he created a world with evil inherent in it, Therefore not omnibenevolent or at least not omnipotent to prevent it. “The thoughts of man have become evil…” meaning he doesnt have the power to create a universe with free will and no evil, thus imperfect creation. No matter which way you phrase or present the question, because of the experience of evil on earth, it is apparent that the “Creator” of this world cannot and is not three omnis at once but is at best 2 of the 3, not perfect.
Surely this is clear enough to make sense.
1
u/blaizej19871 4d ago
It's clear enough to make sense in that I understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it. I mean he created us because he wanted an earthly family, after having already created a spiritual family.
Although this is where we disagree. Evidently you're a believer of gnosticism and you think the creator is yaldabaoth.
1
u/HostileHyperborean 4d ago
That is fair, although I am not necessarily a “Gnostic”. I share their disposition that the creator is inherently evil but I claim a philosophy/theology that is very nuanced and is only understood by a handfull of people in the world. Can you answer satisfactorily why “God” created this world for an earthly family if some of his creation is not of his family, while he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? And if some of his creation is not of his family, of his substance then where do they come from?
1
u/blaizej19871 4d ago
I'm not positive that I follow but I'll give it a try. So i think He is an elohim and there are other elohim and some of them left their original estate, came to earth and mated with human women thus creating an offspring that was unnatural and not meant to be. Those offspring known as nephilim began to make a right mess of things.
7
u/Squidman_Permanence 5d ago
Good is all God.