Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

What do you all think about this?
Airtight, flaws?

Sorry if this topic was discussed before...i didnt see it anywhere.

It is acceptable and humorous, imo.

While this underlines the fundamental problems with religious belief and radical worshippers of the Pink Unicorn, it shouldn't be used as an argument to disregard spirituality as a whole.

He could be able, but not willing to prevent evil and still not be malevolent, because the end goal may require experiencing evil (kind of like what doesn't kill us makes us stronger).

because the end goal may require experiencing evil (kind of like what doesn't kill us makes us stronger).

Couldn't God make the end goal not require experiencing evil?

If not, then he is not omnipotent.

Wait -- doesn't Epicurus have something to do with Hedonism?

Maybe He is omnipotent, and feels that experiencing or dealing with evil is inseparable to being human, like going through boot camp is inseparable to being a soldier. In other words, He can let evil happen without being malevolent (He did let Jesus get tortured and murdered, didn't he?). This is the flaw in the riddle.

As to omnipotence, should God be able to make a square circle or atoms out of marshmallows?

Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear through knowledge (ataraxia) as well as absence of pain (aponia). The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although some equate Epicureanism with hedonism or a form of it (as "hedonism" is commonly understood), professional philosophers of Epicureanism deny that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean

In my opinion, omnipotence means omnipotence.

There is absolutely end to your power, meaning that the laws of logic and physics do not apply to you (unless you want them to, which is a paradox). Realities you create wouldn't have to make any sense (in the way we know them to).



should God be able to make a square circle or atoms out of marshmallows? If he is omnipotent, then yes.

Otherwise, could it really be called omnipotence?

Realities you create wouldn't have to make any sense

Well there you go. It doesn't have to make sense.

He could have unlimited power, and avoid certain actions due to His own code of Omnipotent ethics, the same way He tries to restrict our own actions.

He could have unlimited power, and avoid certain actions due to His own code of Omnipotent ethics, the same way He tries to restrict our own actions.

Yup, he could do that. Why he would is beyond me though, especially since he doesn't need a code of Omnipotent ethics.

That would be like driving a car to work everyday even if you had a spacecraft.

If you had everything, wouldn't you get bored after a while, and start to play games? ...hide things or knowledge from yourself so you could be surprised?

Let me know if I understand this right.

You think we experience evil because God, a perfect entity, gets bored and needs entertainment? If so, I'd have to say that's pretty pessimistic.

No, I'm saying that's why He doesn't break His own rules of logic, for instance, creating an instant utopia for every living thing. Maybe he needs to see the process. Like it can be less rewarding buying a toy car than making your own model of one.

Maybe he needs to see the process.

Why would a perfect entity need anything?

He needs something to do.

I like to think of/imagine god as a little kid playing a violent video game ....and the Earth and it's inhabitants are his way of keeping score!

Baron Max

If beings have eternal souls, then violence isn't such a bad thing. Then death really isn't death. Evil isn't so bad, because there would be perfect justice. Evil is only bad from a limited point of view, in the end, it's worse for those who do evil.

I mean, that's not my opinion, but it seems to be an implication of the whole God idea.

What could be more violent than a collision between two galaxies? And our galaxy was theoretically the result of one such collision. Was that evil? Creation and destruction are fundamentally the same.

if a god is omnipotent, then it has all experiences and knowledge that can possibly be obtained. there is no reason for a god to create us. religion has no logic or reason at its base, if you argue with someone about religion long enough you always end at the same point *god does not need to make sense, god is god*. that is what I hate about religions, they throw logic out the window, and ask you to believe a small minority of eccentric, delusional, or power hungry people. that is the perfect recipe for disaster.

He needs something to do.

That doesn't actually answer the question. *hint: a perfect entity wouldn't need anything. There is no way around it.


If beings have eternal souls, then violence isn't such a bad thing

Thus it's really too bad that there is no evidence whatsoever that souls exist. (Unless you're speaking of souls in reference to personality, in which case it would die the moment the person died)

that is what I hate about religions, they throw logic out the window, and ask you to believe a small minority of eccentric, delusional, or power hungry people.

Hmm, ye're not very tolerant of the beliefs of others, are you? Don't you like others to be tolerant of your own beliefs?

Baron Max

Hmm, ye're not very tolerant of the beliefs of others, are you? Don't you like others to be tolerant of your own beliefs?

not really, but I am right and they are wrong. :) just kidding

is that not true though? do they not throw logic out the proverbial window? moreover, I would call most religious leaders eccentric, and many must be delusional since they can't all be right, and I am sure that some are power hungry. where is the flaw in my argument?

No, you are 100% correct, only the other day (monday) in my religious studies class we had some religious nut come in and prove to us that evolution is not a proven fact! He then backed up this claim by showing us this completly bias video, of some other religious nut proving that there was a god and that evoloution wasnt a fact!!

This fruit loop was also probably 'power hungry', he just didnt express it in his 'speech'!:)

God put the freedom as basis of his/her creation. You are free to be evil, you are free to be good...

do they not throw logic out the proverbial window?

Well, do they not "throw logic out the window" when they talk about "love"?

Do they not "throw logic out the window" when they tell young teens to abstain from sex?

Logic can serve people well in many, most situations. But whenever human emotions are at play, logic might as well be so much hot air and smoke. And just so you know, human emotions play a significant role in human interaction and human events, including national and world politics.


...I would call most religious leaders eccentric, ..., and I am sure that some are power hungry.

I would say that most, if not all, humans exhibit that very trait in varying degrees. And religious leaders are, afterall, human, are they not?

The flaw in your argument? Well, if there is one, it's your attempt to use logic to explain something that has been shown thoughout human history to be anything but logical ....human emotions. "I'm right and ye're wrong!" is the mainstay of human emotional interaction.

Baron Max

Well, do they not "throw logic out the window" when they talk about "love"?
no, love makes very much sense when you examine it. people feel "love" because they are genetically programmed to. it promotes survival. this does not explain away all of loves illogicality, but you can at least say "yeah, I can see how love might arise as a strong influence on our actions"


Do they not "throw logic out the window" when they tell young teens to abstain from sex?
no, they know it may not work because the hormones in teenagers are telling them to have sex, but they try anyway in a struggle to promote their values. that is not illogical, its simply the best method available.


I would say that most, if not all, humans exhibit that very trait in varying degrees. And religious leaders are, after all, human, are they not?
by saying they exhibit these traits, I imply that they posses them with a greater magnitude than average. similarly, saying "wow that person is energetic" does not simply mean that they use energy, as all human so, but that they use an exceptional amount.

returning to my original point, it is no so much the illogicality of religion that bothers me, as love is still fairly illogical and yet does does not bother me, it is the way that illogicality seeps from people's personal beliefs into all matters. religious doctrine has evolved over time to control people, and to reject what might be objectively more beneficial thoughts and actions, and replaces them with the ideology of whomever was fortunate enough to have their doctrine catch on. in short, it replaces original thoughts with the thoughts of those who write doctrine.

the above is pointed at most mainstream religions, as some do not operate this way.