How would you respond to this question?

[pgnat1]

Matthew 4: 5-7

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[c]”

 

[capoly]

“If God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it?”

Good point. You pointed out correctly that the concept of “omnipotence” is not defined in a rigorous manner.

In the past people said that omnipotence includes the ability to create a logically self-contradictory state of affairs - like a square circle, or a married bachelor. Today almost everyone accepts that omnipotence cannot create logical contradictions (though I have a seen a few exceptions), and they suggest that the term “maxipotent” should be used, which would mean that a “maxipotent” being can create everything** that can be created. **

Of course that only moves the goalposts, since now the legitimate question arises: “what can be created”? And for that there is no answer (and cannot be an answer - since it would necessitate omniscience - another undefined attribute). All those “omnimax” attributed are so loosely defined that they are effectively meaningless, though they are supposed to sound “real impressive”.

The truth is that “omnipotence” or “maxipotence” are ill-defined concepts along with the other “omnimax” attributes.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Sure. It is a good idea to examine the different answers in depth. Since you suggest to look at officer 5 and 9, does that mean that you find the other answers unsatisfactory? Just curious.

I don’t know. I just know that officers 5 and 9 stood out to me quickly.

Nope. From omniscience it does not follow the property of benevolence. Besides, to assert that there is perfectly satisfactory answer, but not even trying to give it would require the recipient to subscribe to blind faith. Why should we accept that the answer is incomprehensible to us?

A few reasons. First of all, you’re right-omniscience does not entail benevolence. But thomism asserts the benevolence of God for logical reasons. And if this omniscient being is also benevolent, then there may be several reasons that this omniscient, benevolent being might not tell us this satisfactory answer- we just don’t know it. I suggest reading the blog of Dr. Edward Feser for info on thomism.

There is a problem here. The compensation must be a logical corollary to the suffering. If the suffering is not logically connected to the compensation, then the compensation cannot logically justify the prior suffering.

Christians believe there is a logical corollary-we’re just not told exactly what it is. Why not? See my above answer on omniscience and benevolence.

I am all ears. Anyone could show a logical and rational line of arguments how the problem of evil can be “solved”, that person would qualify for a huge Nobel prize. Observe, the argument must be rationally constructed and should be convincing to atheists. Believers do not need to be convinced. The usual cop-out (that atheists are intentionally “blind”) should be avoided. No atheist can refuse to accept an argument if the refusal would lead to a logical contradiction.

You’re NEVER going to convince everybody, believers and atheists alike. Just because we disagree whether the answer works or not, doesn’t necessarily mean that the eperson providing the answer is wrong. It just means you’re not convinced, and there could be a variety of reasons for that.

 

[davidv]

Good point. You pointed out correctly that the concept of “omnipotence” is not defined in a rigorous manner.

In the past people said that omnipotence includes the ability to create a logically self-contradictory state of affairs - like a square circle, or a married bachelor. Today almost everyone accepts that omnipotence cannot create logical contradictions (though I have a seen a few exceptions), and they suggest that the term “maxipotent” should be used, which would mean that a “maxipotent” being can create everything** that can be created. **

Of course that only moves the goalposts, since now the legitimate question arises: “what can be created”? And for that there is no answer (and cannot be an answer - since it would necessitate omniscience - another undefined attribute). All those “omnimax” attributed are so loosely defined that they are effectively meaningless, though they are supposed to sound “real impressive”.

The truth is that “omnipotence” or “maxipotence” are ill-defined concepts along with the other “omnimax” attributes.

Another truth is, as regards these words used to the describe attributes of God, they must be, by definition, ill-defined, as God is ineffable. Any and all words we attempt to describe Him fall short, since a finite being, us, is attempting to describe a infinite being.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

“If God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it?”

An article by Dr. Edward Feser, a Thomist:

"A reader asks for my response to this passage from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion:

Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. (pp. 77-78)

We have here a standard New Atheist rhetorical trick: Take a simplistic objection to theism that has been raised and answered many times and present it to the unwary non-expert reader as if it were a devastating refutation that no one has ever been able to rebut.

As to the substance: Note first that for almost all theists, “omnipotence” does not entail the power to bring into being a self-contradictory state of affairs (e.g. creating a round square or a stone that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift). The reason is that there is no such power; the very notion of such a power is incoherent, precisely because the notion of a self-contradictory state of affairs is incoherent. God’s power would be limited only if there was some power He lacked. Since there is no such thing as a power to make contradictions true, His inability to do so is no limitation on His power. (And if an atheist insists that an omnipotent being would have to have such a power, that only hurts his own case. For that enables the theist to say, in response to any possible objection that the atheist could ever raise: “Since God can make contradictions true, He can make it true that He exists even though your argument shows He doesn’t!”)

Now, suppose A and B are logically coherent but mutually incompatible states of affairs. God, being omnipotent, can bring about either one. Suppose that in fact He wills to bring about A rather than B. Being omniscient, He knows that A rather than B is what He wills to bring about. Where is the conflict with omnipotence? Does His knowing that A is what He wills entail that He could not have willed B instead? No, He could have willed it; He just hasn’t. Does the conflict lie instead in the fact that He can’t will A and B together? No, because A and B are logically incompatible, and (as we have seen) omnipotence does not entail the power to generate contradictory states of affairs."

You can read more in the full article. This is the traditional Thomistic response, and it has not changed since St. Thomas originally articulated it.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I’m not talking about cancer. I’m talking about suffering generally, in response to a narrowly-quoted snippet of lines originally posted by an atheist.

Also notice that I said “among other things.” i…e, justice isn’t exhaustive of the full list of goods people can entertain. Some other goods include things like almsgiving, self-sacrifice, patience, courage, etc., which presuppose evils and which would not exist or not need to exist in the absence of those evils. So there’s another reason there is suffering: God, in His goodness, gives us all greater and more abundant opportunities to do good with our limited time and resources.

Really, what I said is not even remotely controversial: in principle we suffer because the masses of men are horrible sinners. The modern mind shrinks from this only because of entitlement mentality.

I take it that you’re abandoning your claim about justice, then?

Notice that you did not say a single word about justice in your response, when that was the only thing that your quoted post specifically mentioned and the only thing that my reply addressed.

You just moved the figurative goalposts by hiding justice in a corner behind a brick wall of previously unnamed “other stuff” and poetry.

 

[fred_conty]

@ Greyrabbit, you quoted an atheist who said,
“If God is all powerful, all knowing etc. etc., then why doesn’t He just tell us the cure for cancer?”​

Just tell them that God is waiting on the atheists, who say that science has all the answers, to give him the answer.

Just a thought.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

We have here a standard New Atheist rhetorical trick: Take a simplistic objection to theism that has been raised and answered many times and present it to the unwary non-expert reader as if it were a devastating refutation that no one has ever been able to rebut.

As to the substance: Note first that for almost all theists, “omnipotence” does not entail the power to bring into being a self-contradictory state of affairs (e.g. creating a round

It’s a glib semantic argument that only succeeds in demonstrating the finite mind’s inability to encompass the infinite.

 

[Catholic80]

A person asked my husband, who asked me, and now I’m asking CAF: “If God is all powerful, all knowing etc. etc., then why doesn’t He just tell us the cure for cancer?”

For my part, I said that God is not answerable to us, and who are we to ask of Him these things? I said, “Why did He let us discover penicillin? Why didn’t He just tell us about it? Why did He let us discover all the medicines we know of today? People get cancer for a reason, even if we don’t understand why. They can either use it to good, or don’t do anything with it. They can either use it for redemptive suffering, and receive graces that could touch thousands, or not use it and it goes nowhere.”

But my husband reminded me this person is an atheist, with no religious background (that we are aware of), so any sound answers my husband gives him, aren’t listened to. Yet, interestingly, this person keeps asking. Either way, the answer I gave above, would not be understood, or acceptable in his view.

So, this is a long about way of asking, what is your opinion? Is there anything we can say to this person that is a “sound enough” answer?

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
Grey

I think not being told directly is part of the consequence of being thrown out of the Garden of Eden.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they believed that they could do something without God and be perfectly fine. This sin is passed down to all of us. We think we are great in and of ourselves, but one of the reasons for our suffering and exile is to remind us that we depend on God and God alone for everything. We need to become like beggars in front of God. If God just handed us the answers, we wouldn’t recognize our desperate need. We need to be “hungry” in order to recognize where we truly belong - with God.

 

[vera_dicere]

Say God did rock up one day with the cure for cancer in hand. “Here you go” he says, and dolls it over, saving millions of lives.

Who’s going to be an atheist then? WHo’s going to willingly choose God with full free will and love?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Say God did rock up one day with the cure for cancer in hand. “Here you go” he says, and dolls it over, saving millions of lives.

Who’s going to be an atheist then? WHo’s going to willingly choose God with full free will and love?

Actually, I think if we had some modern apologetics of the style demonstrated in 1 Kings 18:21-39 from time to time you’d have much less non-Christians. ( I specifically say “non-Christians” because not every non-Christian is an atheist).

 

[WmB]

I disagree. If the question were worded differently I might agree, such as “If there were an all powerful and knowing God then he would have told us the cure for cancer, and hasn’t” then I would agree with you. But the question as worded is asking for an explanation for a behavior . Let’s take another look at the question."

Thank you for responding.

OK, then, instead of trying to read the mind of the original questioner, I would respond with a follow-up question.

As stated, the OP is not quoting a statement about a behavior, but about the motivation for a behavior that (according to the questioner) has not happened (paraphrasing: “why doesn’t God just tell us the cure for cancer?”).

Ignoring for the moment that we have found cures for some forms of cancer (we can do nothing on our own, without God’s help and without his permissive will), my follow-up question is, “Why should God tell us how to cure cancer?”

If you don’t like “should” you can replace it with “would.” Then we’d be right back to “why do you think God is obligated to do this?”

 

[capoly]

A few reasons. First of all, you’re right-omniscience does not entail benevolence. But thomism asserts the benevolence of God for logical reasons. And if this omniscient being is also benevolent, then there may be several reasons that this omniscient, benevolent being might not tell us this satisfactory answer- we just don’t know it. I suggest reading the blog of Dr. Edward Feser for info on thomism.

First, Thomism is not an officially endorsed philosophy of the church (there is no officially endorsed philosophy). Second, Aquinas’s philosophy is full of logical errors.

Christians believe there is a logical corollary-we’re just not told exactly what it is. Why not? See my above answer on omniscience and benevolence.

Well, then this is simply the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratiam. If you cannot show that without the said suffering the person would get no admittance into heaven, then your claim is unfounded.

You’re NEVER going to convince everybody, believers and atheists alike. Just because we disagree whether the answer works or not, doesn’t necessarily mean that the eperson providing the answer is wrong. It just means you’re not convinced, and there could be a variety of reasons for that.

Believers do not need to be convinced, they are already convinced. Atheists can only be convinced by non-religious arguments, if the rejection of those arguments would lead to a logical contradiction, then they must accept them on pain of insanity. Fortunately, the church states among the dogmas that God’s existence can be proven by rational means only. Unfortunately, it does not say: “how”? So it remains an empty utterance.

 

[capoly]

If you don’t like “should” you can replace it with “would.” Then we’d be right back to “why do you think God is obligated to do this?”

Because of “love”, mayhaps? Love gives, even if there is no “obligation” to do so. Love (agape) takes the responsibility to act on behalf of the others. That is what agape means.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

First, Thomism is not an officially endorsed philosophy of the church (there is no officially endorsed philosophy).

No, but it’s an philosophy that can be endorsed by members of the Church and the most commonly held philosophy, and I do hold to it.

Second, Aquinas’s philosophy is full of logical errors.

I completely disagree.

Well, then this is simply the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratiam. If you cannot show that without the said suffering the person would get no admittance into heaven, then your claim is unfounded.

It is not unfounded if we accept the Thomistic claim that everything God does contributes to the good.

Believers do not need to be convinced, they are already convinced. Atheists can only be convinced by non-religious arguments, if the rejection of those arguments would lead to a logical contradiction, then they must accept them on pain of insanity. Fortunately, the church states among the dogmas that God’s existence can be proven by rational means only. Unfortunately, it does not say: “how”? So it remains an empty utterance.

Well, one way to prove God’s existence is through Aquinas’s five proofs.

 

[capoly]

Another truth is, as regards these words used to the describe attributes of God, they must be, by definition, ill-defined, as God is ineffable. Any and all words we attempt to describe Him fall short, since a finite being, us, is attempting to describe a infinite being.

In this case you have a serious logical problem. Suppose you use this argument: “There is being “B”, who has attribute “A” (among some other attributes)”. I ask: “please define attribute A”. If you say that it cannot be defines on its own right, that it can ONLY be defined in conjuctiion with being “B”, then you employ a circular argument, along these lines:

Q: What is being “B”?
A: Being “B” is, who has the following attributes: “A”, etc…
Q: But what is attribute “A”?
A: it is something that being “B” has…

I hope you see the problem. If omnipotence and omniscience cannot be defined in a fully secular manner, if these concepts only gain meaning when mentioned in conjunction with God, then you have NO agrument. By the way, the basis of these attributes: “knowledge” and “power” can be fully defined in a secular manner. The problem comes if we try to extend them to something “omni”. That is when the proverbial substance hits the fan.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I choose to bow out of this debate since I have already stated my position and I believe no further headway can be made by either side. You may draw your own conclusions about what that means in the context of “winning” or “losing” the debate.

You have not been rude or unpleasant to me at all and I wish you no ill will. Have a nice day.

 

[capoly]

Well, one way to prove God’s existence is through Aquinas’s five proofs.

Which are loaded with logical problems and sheer nonsense. If those would be “bulletproof”, the church would proclaim the “final, unassilable proof” for God’s existence, and would shout it from the rooftops. That does not happen. So not even the church believes their validity.

 

[capoly]

I choose to bow out of this debate since I have already stated my position and I believe no further headway can be made by either side. You may draw your own conclusions about what that means in the context of “winning” or “losing” the debate.

You have not been rude or unpleasant to me at all and I wish you no ill will. Have a nice day.

Thank you for the conversation. Best wishes to you, too!

 

[davidv]

In this case you have a serious logical problem. Suppose you use this argument: “There is being “B”, who has attribute “A” (among some other attributes)”. I ask: “please define attribute A”. If you say that it cannot be defines on its own right, that it can ONLY be defined in conjuctiion with being “B”, then you employ a circular argument, along these lines:

Q: What is being “B”?
A: Being “B” is, who has the following attributes: “A”, etc…
Q: But what is attribute “A”?
A: it is something that being “B” has…

I hope you see the problem. If omnipotence and omniscience cannot be defined in a fully secular manner, if these concepts only gain meaning when mentioned in conjunction with God, then you have NO agrument. By the way, the basis of these attributes: “knowledge” and “power” can be fully defined in a secular manner. The problem comes if we try to extend them to something “omni”. That is when the proverbial substance hits the fan.

This is only a problem if one is attempting to define A. Nor does this problem leave A completely undefined. It is only a partial hinderance to describing B. Since the existance of God cannot be proven, or disproven, emperically, it is a rather moot point. Also, the secord A in the Q&A above is a strawman.