Is the Christian God self-contradictory?

[atheos_sum]

If God possesses Omniscience and he is the Creator of all, I say this excludes the possibility of free will.

You say it doesn’t.

Kant is known for elaborating the issue of “intentions” in moral philosophy. I think this might be useful to demonstrate my point. Human beings, since we are not omniscient and do not always know with absolute certainty the outcomes of our actions. We are often excused for, say, causing accidents, if we didn’t actually intend or anticipate a certain outcome. We are excused on grounds that we are not omniscient and therefore did not know that we would cause an accident.

God is different. God, since he is omniscient, intends always the actual outcome. He anticipates infallibly. If he anticipates something, but that something doesn’t happen, he would not be omniscinent. In other words, nothing comes as a surprise to him.

Causality: Suppose God did not create the universe, and, say, the universe had thus existed forever with God. In this case, God would not have been the cause of the universe. But God is still omniscient in this case, so he anticipates all things infallibly. Even though God knows these outcomes, however, he cannot be said to have willed them because he didn’t cause the universe.

But now suppose we put these two together.

God created a universe in which he knew the outcome of all things therein. In this case, since God anticipates infallibly, upon creating the universe he would have already understood its every outcome infallibly. Despite whether it is said that the creation is free to choose their own actions, in reality, they would only freely choose what God had known they would choose. If God had not created the universe, or ig God is not omniscient, humans could have free will. But since he created the universe with all these outcomes in mind–assuming he created it purposefully–this means that God created a universe that was foreordained in his mind.

 

[Holly3278]

No.

 

[Ghosty]

Whatever your thoughts/misgivings are about the IQ test per se, my point still holds: If we were somewhat “better” in any sense, IQ for example, this would mean that we are not currently “perfect” in any sense.

Covered in previous posts multiple times. I will not repeat myself on this.

So you’ve assumed free will as a part of your “perfection in kind” scheme. You are the one who is begging the question.

Are you trying to say that God created man with free will and just using “perfection in kind” as a disguise?

I’ve explained this multiple times, and I won’t continue to do it just because you aren’t paying attention. This was covered WAY back in post #67.

I don’t know how else to explain it to you. Perhaps you do not understand it?
It’s already prime.
it’s already in simplified form.

But it’s not, and everyone else here can see that, as can the people I’ve shown this thread to. If it IS prime, then you need to demonstrate that, but you’ve failed to do so. You’ve fallen onto the fallacy that just because something follows something else, it must be caused by that. That is among the most basic errors in logic and philosophy. You simply can’t assume causality in a philosophical arena in the way you are doing.

Your responses are maddeningly stupid. What, if any, philosophy background do you have anyway?

Apparently enough to habitually recognize logical fallacies that you take for granted. I don’t have a big academic philosophy background precisely because I have a deep background in logic, and the modern academic world does not deal in logic when it teaches philosophy. Logic is the foundation of philosophy, something most modern universities have forgotten. Now not having an academic philosophy background doesn’t mean I haven’t read Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Aquinas, Hume, Kant, ect.

Besides, being told that my responses are maddeningly stupid by someone who requested more people to comment on his ideas, and when someone did he said he wouldn’t respond to them unless they “got him” is rich beyond words.

Sometimes things are caused by things which come before them. So the “propter hoc” fallacy is not simply a one-line-slogan yo use against any causal argument you happen to dislike.

This is not a fallacy in this case.

Oh? Prove it. Sometimes does not equate to necessity. You haven’t at all demonstrated that this is the case, you just repeatedly said that it is.

 

[Ghosty]

I was pointing out that an omniscient God cannot be surprised at anything. period. You misunderstand everything i say. I can usually finger someone who is new at thinking philosophically, because they will try to treat all sentences as if they were syllogisms, and blurt names of fallacies that don’t apply. This is you.

Refering to the bold, so what? Suprise does not make something free. In fact, suprise can make an action *unfree. *I recommend you ponder “Non volitur quod non prius cognoscitur”.

As for your statement about syllogisms, I think that gives away your ability with logic, and demonstrates my point about modern philosophy courses (as I see you are currently a philosophy major). Your problem is apparently your inability to use syllogism, which renders your arguments specious at best. You are the master of the non sequitor.

“But it is, and if you don’t see it, you’re not smart enough,” is not a logical premise at all. I’ve repeatedly shown my proofs, and you’ve simply repeated your assumptions. This ain’t “The Matrix”, and something being showy, or presented forcefully, doesn’t make it philosophically sound.

Why should God be forced to accept any old outcome that comes along? He created it, it’s his spectacle, he knew the outcomes before he created it. Why would he not have created it exactly the way he wanted it? Why would God have created something he didn’t want? Hence Mackie’s comments.

Post #67.

Nonetheless, God does not “allow” anything. Allow implies free will. As i have shown, repeatedly, this is an impossibility. :yup:

Actually, you haven’t. You’ve buried yourself in non sequitors and other logical fallacies. But I suppose a madman is a genius in his own cell.

We’re not back to post hoc. There was no post hoc.

Just like there is no spoon, right? Denial doesn’t make it so.

Pssh. I eat logical fallacies for breakfast.

You are what you eat. I don’t mind that do, so much, I just wish you wouldn’t deign to vomit them back up all over your posts

My analogy still stands unobstructed. You have not attempted it directly. You have only complained about the nature of analogies.

For your analogy to stand unobstructed, it must first stand on its own. When it does, we’ll talk. Until then it’s irrelevant.

 

[Giennensis]

I don’t see the point of this fight. The atheist guy is commiting one logical fallacy after other one. You cannot say because God created all and knows what was going to happen with His creation before creating it, it meand either we don’t have free will or God doesn’t exist. It’s a clear non sequitur. It doesn’t follow.

In logical terms you say:

God created all.
God knows the future of everything (Omniscience).
God’s Omniscience implies absence of free will.
If we have free will then God doesn’t exist or God is not omniscient, because He would avoid evil before it happened.

You’ll have to explain me how come God must or even should avoid evil just because He knows it will happen. It’s rather obvious we have free will, though it’s imperfect, of course, but we still can choose quite freely. If God gave us free will… why should He overrun it? It’s absurd, He would have just created us without it if He was going to keep us from using it for evil.

You could say God’s Benevolent, so He would do that to give us good. But that is contradictory, because benevolence, love, implies to let the loved ones to act freely even if they choose to hate Him. You cannot have a free loving relationship with a slave or an automaton.

The only way a Benevolent God could make a creature capable of maintaing a real loving relation with Him was by providing free will to the creatures, and opening the possibility of being rejected by them. The only limit of our free will is our imperfection as creatures.

(Edit)

About wrathfulness, you seem to see it as any kind of sadistic way of making people to suffer, when the truth is God’s wrath is just corrective, as it is the punishment a father would give to his children in order to make them to understand what’s good and what’s bad (since children understand good and evil as “reward and punishment”). God’s wrath comes from His benevolence. He teaches His children they shouldn’t do certain things that hurt themselves or their brothers.

Peace

 

[Ghosty]

God is different. God, since he is omniscient, intends always the actual outcome.

Non sequitor.

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

Non sequitor.

if you think this is a non-sequitur, i take it you must also believe it is false.

So, if God does not always anticipate actual outcomes, actual consequences, you must be implying that he anticipates false outcomes, false consequences. This is a legitimate question, as all of my questions have been. So if you brush it off as a “logical fallacy” then i am through debating with you.

 

[buffalo]

Giennensis:

About wrathfulness, you seem to see it as any kind of sadistic way of making people to suffer, when the truth is God’s wrath is just corrective, as it is the punishment a father would give to his children in order to make them to understand what’s good and what’s bad (since children understand good and evil as “reward and punishment”). God’s wrath comes from His benevolence. He teaches His children they shouldn’t do certain things that hurt themselves or their brothers.

Peace

aka - Justice.

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty:

But it’s not, and everyone else here can see that, as can the people I’ve shown this thread to. If it IS prime, then you need to demonstrate that, but you’ve failed to do so. You’ve fallen onto the fallacy that just because something follows something else, it must be caused by that.

That is true that there is a fallacy related to this way of thinking, but you are committing an even greater fallacy by saying that anyone who recognizes sequential causation is committing the fallacy of post hoc. When i knock over a domino and i cause the next domino to fall, i recognize that the first domino caused the second domino. If you told me that i was committing a “post hoc” fallacy, you would be wrong. So “post hoc” doesn’t apply to every argument where a causal sequence is recognized.

Ghosty:

That is among the most basic errors in logic and philosophy. You simply can’t assume causality in a philosophical arena in the way you are doing.

The most basic error in philosophy is what exactly? and you would know how?

Ghosty:

I don’t have a big academic philosophy background precisely because I have a deep background in logic, and the modern academic world does not deal in logic when it teaches philosophy. Logic is the foundation of philosophy, something most modern universities have forgotten.

not mine thank you very much.

Ghosty:

Now not having an academic philosophy background doesn’t mean I haven’t read Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Aquinas, Hume, Kant,

Just because you have read them does not mean that you understand what my argument is. It doesn’t mean that you understand the proper usage of fallacies such as the post hoc. I debate for my school, and everyone understands that you cannot use argumentative fallacies, such as “ad populum” or “post hoc” in all cases. In certain circumstances an appeal to popularity is warranted. In certain circumstances causation is sequential. There has been a lot of philosophy since Hume and Kant. Have you read any more modern philosophers?

Ghosty:

Besides, being told that my responses are maddeningly stupid by someone who requested more people to comment on his ideas, and when someone did he said he wouldn’t respond to them unless they “got him” is rich beyond words.

I requested people that i have debated with before and who have more background in philosophy. not quantity; quality.

Ghosty:

Oh? Prove it. Sometimes does not equate to necessity. You haven’t at all demonstrated that this is the case, you just repeatedly said that it is.

vide supra

 

[buffalo]

atheos_sum:

If God possesses Omniscience and he is the Creator of all, I say this excludes the possibility of free will.

You say it doesn’t.

Kant is known for elaborating the issue of “intentions” in moral philosophy. I think this might be useful to demonstrate my point. Human beings, since we are not omniscient and do not always know with absolute certainty the outcomes of our actions. We are often excused for, say, causing accidents, if we didn’t actually intend or anticipate a certain outcome. We are excused on grounds that we are not omniscient and therefore did not know that we would cause an accident.

God is different. God, since he is omniscient, intends always the actual outcome. He anticipates infallibly. If he anticipates something, but that something doesn’t happen, he would not be omniscinent. In other words, nothing comes as a surprise to him.

Causality: Suppose God did not create the universe, and, say, the universe had thus existed forever with God. In this case, God would not have been the cause of the universe. But God is still omniscient in this case, so he anticipates all things infallibly. Even though God knows these outcomes, however, he cannot be said to have willed them because he didn’t cause the universe.

But now suppose we put these two together.

God created a universe in which he knew the outcome of all things therein. In this case, since God anticipates infallibly, upon creating the universe he would have already understood its every outcome infallibly. Despite whether it is said that the creation is free to choose their own actions, in reality, they would only freely choose what God had known they would choose. If God had not created the universe, or ig God is not omniscient, humans could have free will. But since he created the universe with all these outcomes in mind–assuming he created it purposefully–this means that God created a universe that was foreordained in his mind.

God is a macro manager not a micro manager. God has predestined redemptive history to fulfill prophecy. Jesus’ coming was foretold.

God allows choice (free will) otherwise everything is predestined.

 

[Ghosty]

So, if God does not always anticipate actual outcomes, actual consequences, you must be implying that he anticipates false outcomes, false consequences. This is a legitimate question, as all of my questions have been. So if you brush it off as a “logical fallacy” then i am through debating with you.

The fallacy is that you go from “foresee” to “intend”. Complete jump of logic, and a non sequitor.

That is true that there is a fallacy related to this way of thinking, but you are committing an even greater fallacy by saying that anyone who recognizes sequential causation is committing the fallacy of post hoc. When i knock over a domino and i cause the next domino to fall, i recognize that the first domino caused the second domino. If you told me that i was committing a “post hoc” fallacy, you would be wrong. So “post hoc” doesn’t apply to every argument where a causal sequence is recognized.

We’re not discussing physical, scientific principles of observation. In physical observation we must assume causation because it’s useful. In the transcendant, philosophical sense this can never be assumed in the cases we’re discussing. In fact, it doesn’t even follow in the realm of physical observation. To use your example, placing the dominos down does not cause them to fall, even if you knew that someone would come along and knock the first one down. There is no causal relationship in this case between placing and knocking down the first domino, even if you create all actors involved and know what they will do.

not mine thank you very much.

Then I recommend you make use of some logic. So far you’ve done nothing but introduce fallacy after fallacy. I won’t assume that you haven’t learned logic, but I will say from observation that it’s not your forte.

In certain circumstances an appeal to popularity is warranted. In certain circumstances causation is sequential.

Not in these cases, however. If you are going to appeal to causation, you need to demonstrate it, not just assume it.

vide supra

I have, and you didn’t demonstrate it. You leaped in logic, commiting a non sequitor.

This is not a secular, uneducated environment that simply assumes that knowing an outcome beforehand means the actor has no free will. If you believe that, you must demonstrate it. We’ve continually presented how it can’t be said that there is no free will; I recommend you post a counter formulation if you want to prove your point.

There has been a lot of philosophy since Hume and Kant. Have you read any more modern philosophers?

Depends on what you mean by philosopher. You’d have to name some names, because I can’t recall anyone off the top of my head who could actually be called a philosopher, since most modern “philosophers” show the same disdain for logic that you’re doing.

 

[atheos_sum]

Ghosty,

We are finished debating on this topic. I would appreciate it if you would not post any further on this thread, as you have nothing else to add but bitterness and confusion. You do not understand the argument i have presented and you do not have a basic understanding of argumentation and philosophy that other posters I have debated this with possess. I have in fact provided analogy after analogy, demonstration after demonstration and this has not helped you.

Another philosophy student and good friend of mine read the last 20 posts or so and commented, saying that it was useless debating further with you since you did not recognize the significance of the argument nor what the connection between the attributes actually is. In all of your posts, it is apparent that you view each of the attributes as completely autonomous, but never see them as a whole (which is what my argument demands.) I have debated this on other forums, usually in strictly philosophical forums, where others have quickly realized the issue I raised. We can then move on to discuss whether this is a problem or not. Our debate has not progressed because you are inexperienced in recognizing an argument, not because of lack of effort on my behalf nor because of the mistakes you point out actually exist.

My friend exclaimed, “It would have been better had someone at least understood the argument as it was presented. But since she has not even understood how the argument works, and has demonstrated to be incapable of understanding it, there’s no use arguing further.” Then he added, “Do not argue with an idiot, Joe. They just bring you down to their level, and then they beat you with experience.” I feel that he is correct in this respect, and so I am done debating with you.

Atheos_sum

 

[Ghosty]

I would appreciate it if you would not post any further on this thread, as you have nothing else to add but bitterness and confusion.

I’ve been neither bitter, nor confused, but whatever floats your boat

I have in fact provided analogy after analogy, demonstration after demonstration and this has not helped you.

Your analogies have been full of assumptions and fallacies, that’s the problem. In the button-pushing analogy, for example, you make the leap from creation of the actor and foreknowledge of the action to intent of the action, which does not logically follow.

Another philosophy student and good friend of mine read the last 20 posts or so and commented, saying that it was useless debating further with you since you did not recognize the significance of the argument nor what the connection between the attributes actually is.

Of course I haven’t, but only because you’ve demonstrated neither the significance nor the connections. You seem to take it for granted that I haven’t had such debates before, or at least that I haven’t had them from the side you’re taking now. I know what the significance of the argument is, and what the connection you’re trying to make is, and I’m telling you that they don’t exist, or at least haven’t been demonstrated in any debate I’m aware of.

The funny thing is that you keep accusing me of “not juggling attributes”, but that’s precisely what I did in #67, which is the post you commented on the least, and apparently never went back to after things have been clarified. That’s fine, I hardly expect you to now. I also hardly expect to continue this discussion and have to retype everything I wrote there when it’s just a click away.

It’s unfortunate that your “philosophy student” friend didn’t post on this thread as mine has, but what is past is past.

I have debated this on other forums, usually in strictly philosophical forums, where others have quickly realized the issue I raised. We can then move on to discuss whether this is a problem or not. Our debate has not progressed because you are inexperienced in recognizing an argument, not because of lack of effort on my behalf nor because of the mistakes you point out actually exist.

So you mean others assumed these issues without you having to do the leg-work of proving these issues exist? Sucks to be called on a faulty assumption, doesn’t it?

To quote Augustinian:

If there is indeed a contradiction, then show us the contradiction. Or do you think that we could naturally comprehend everything about God, and Theologians are just using a fancy excuse?

Means nothing now, but it might be worth coming back to in the future.

My friend exclaimed, “It would have been better had someone at least understood the argument as it was presented. But since she has not even understood how the argument works, and has demonstrated to be incapable of understanding it, there’s no use arguing further.”

I think your friend has a creative way of saying “assumed your point without proof.” I’m perfectly able to understand arguments that are built up, but I refuse to assume arguments that have non-sequitur leaps of logic built in to them. But Lord knows I’m not a student with the prestigious resume of having a couple of scholarships to my name and an incomplete Philosophy degree

Then he added, “Do not argue with an idiot, Joe. They just bring you down to their level, and then they beat you with experience.” I feel that he is correct in this respect, and so I am done debating with you.

Funny, I was about to say the same thing. Fortunately, I also have more experience in seeing when I’m not adding up and demonstrating my case, which is why I’m on this side of the disagreement after so many years and not yours. I certainly have a lot more of experience being an idiot, and I also have a lot more experience in recognizing it, apparently.

Good luck with your Philosophy degree, and God bless!

 

[john_doran]

atheos_sum:

If God were benevolent, He would have created some other world which did not have sin, as JL Mackie has pointed out. If this were not possible, then God is not omnipotent. If God can does this and chooses not to, well, I’m not sure if this would make him evil, but certainly narcissistic.

this is not right: if it is not possible for god to create a world that contains both free agents and no (moral) evil, then it is logically impossible fo him to do so. and it is no compromise on omnipotence not to be able to actualize logically impossible states of affairs.

i’m not sure if this has been covered, because i can’t be bothered to read this whole thread from end to end…

atheos_sum:

Nonetheless, since ‘God knowingly created all things’ every sinner who allegedly is condemned to an eternity in hell is an obvious contradiction to our notion of God. But it doesn’t take a sinner’s eternity in hell to cancel the possibility of our benevolent creator-god, the slightest evil in the world is enough to do the trick.

god condemns no one to hell: ever occupant of that place has chosen to be there, and chooses to remain.

 

[john_doran]

Suppose I know with absolute certainty you will push this red button, and this will cause an alarm will go off. If I simply know this, I am not the cause of this. So, when you push the button and the alarm goes off, I am not responsible. Only in this sense is it valid to say “knowledge of an action does not preclude the actor’s free will.”

But causality flips this notion completely on its head. If I “know with absolute certainty you will cause the alarm” plus I caused the cause (which is you) which causes the alarm, then ipso facto I am responsible for causing the alarm.
[/quote]

even if this particular argument is sound, it doesn’t entail determinism.

witness: the logical formalism of the argument is this:

if god knows p, then p.
god knows p
therefore p

whether or not determinism is entailed here depends entirely on what p happens to be, and does not follow simply from the structure of the reasoning itself.

so, for example, if p happens to be the proposition “sam will eat cornflakes for breakfast tomorrow”, then the conlusion entailed is that sam will eat conflakes tomorrow, as you yoursefl observe.

however, if p is rather “sam will freely choose to eat cornflakes for breakfast tomorrow”, the fact that god knows p clearly does not entail that sam is determined to eat cornflakes tomorrow morning - on the contrary, it entails that he will freely choose to do so.

in order to motivate your argument, you would first need to demonstrate that there are no true propositions about free choices. but then your argument to determinism from god’s omniscience would be otiose, since you would already have had to establish the determinism you’re seeking to prove with the argument…

 

[Akanke]

john doran:

i’m not sure if this has been covered, because i can’t be bothered to read this whole thread from end to end…

Oh, you should take the time to read it. It’s maddeningly hilarious. (scan post 97 for the use of “maddeningly”)

 

[atheos_sum]

john doran:

this is not right: if it is not possible for god to create a world that contains both free agents and no (moral) evil, then it is logically impossible fo him to do so.

To understand this point, I admit, there must be more explanation. I was foreshadowing a bit too soon. Let’s take a step back and understand Mackie’s point.

The point was that there were many “possible states of affairs” that God could have actualized (that God could have decided upon) when he was in this primary state. The primary state is the primary state of affairs “before the foundation of the world” in which God existed but the universe did not. This was a state in which God would have decided—and of course you do agree that “to create” was in fact a decision made by God Himself I’m assuming—to actualize one of these possible states of affairs. (You do agree that only one possible state of affairs is actual–i’m assuming too. In other words, there is only one reality. This assumption is, however, quite necessary for practical purposes.) But there are, of course, an infinite amount of differing possible states of affairs which could have been chosen by God in the primary state, each nuanced and slightly different from the rest. Do you follow?

So the problem Mackie poses, in short, is that God—if he is indeed benevolent—would have chosen the best possible state of affairs to actualize. Do you follow?
john doran:

and it is no compromise on omnipotence not to be able to actualize logically impossible states of affairs.

The question of omnipotence is often brought up in this debate. It is often asked as, “how good could God have possibly created the universe…?” It isn’t needed, on my part however, in order to establish the contradiction at the outset, which is why I don’t include in the list of “contradictory attributes”. However, since it has been brought up, it is necessary that I should respond to it. And since you brought up omniscience, perhaps you now understand, unlike Ghosty, that it is now my prerogative to respond to it.

But you are in fact right. And I’m not disagreeing with your statement above. It is no compromise on omnipotence to be limited to only being able to do logically possible things. IOW, The only limitations on omnipotence, then, are logical limitations. (I’m a Plantinga reader, so I should know this.) That is, God cannot create a square-circle, because this is logically impossible; or the age-old question of whether God can create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift, and so on. Do you follow?
john doran:

god condemns no one to hell: ever occupant of that place has chosen to be there, and chooses to remain.

I would respond to this, however, i think we will have covered this through the general discussion of free will. No sense having the same discussion in more than one place on the same thread.

 

[atheos_sum]

john doran:

even if this particular argument is sound, it doesn’t entail determinism.

This particular illustration of theological determinism is sound, thank you for acknowledging this. And it was meant to suggest that theological determinism in general is sound.
john doran:

witness: the logical formalism of the argument is this:

if god knows p, then p.
god knows p
therefore p

Yes
john doran:

whether or not determinism is entailed here depends entirely on what p happens to be, and does not follow simply from the structure of the reasoning itself.

I don’t think it depends on what P happens to be, unless God can choose *not to know *a particular P. In which case, he wouldn’t be omniscient. In my view, in order for God not be contradictory there are a number of things that could happen: one of them is that he is less than omniscient.

It does not depend on what P is, precisely because God knows all Ps, not just specific ones: not just ones that do not involve evil; not just ones do not involve salvation.
john doran:

so, for example, if p happens to be the proposition “sam will eat cornflakes for breakfast tomorrow”, then the conlusion entailed is that sam will eat conflakes tomorrow, as you yoursefl observe.

however, if p is rather “sam will freely choose to eat cornflakes for breakfast tomorrow”, the fact that god knows p clearly does not entail that sam is determined to eat cornflakes tomorrow morning - on the contrary, it entails that he will freely choose to do so.

In my view, here we are simply giving the predetermined act of “eating cornflakes for breakfast” the euphemistic name of a “freely chosen act.” This is much like Orwellian doublespeak in my view.

Please explain to me how, in a universe that is foreordained, any act could be called a “freely chosen act.”

But you have raised another point of interest. This is, whether there are “alternative states of affairs?” Do you follow? The absence of alternatives states of affairs presupposes that Sam has no other alternatives to cornflakes. So, in the absence of alternatives, there is no room for freedom. Even though Sam imagines that he himself is choosing freely, the alleged “alternatives” are nothing more than illusions. This is because in my view there is only one actual state of affairs. It is necessary that it be “impossible” for him to choose “Wheaties” in order for God to be omniscient. If Sam does choose Wheaties, then our Someone is not truly omniscient. Do you follow?
john doran:

in order to motivate your argument, you would first need to demonstrate that there are no true propositions about free choices. but then your argument to determinism from god’s omniscience would be otiose, since you would already have had to establish the determinism you’re seeking to prove with the argument…

I wish I knew what you meant by “demonstrate that there are no true propositions about free choices” and I don’t understand what follows either.

 

[atheos_sum]

John Doran,

I see from reading the last bit of the thread “Is Atheism Biased Towards Logic?” that you have read the entire corpus of Plantinga’s works. This is very admirable, and I’m looking forward now to what you have to add to the discussion.

 

[Wormwood]

The question of omnipotence is often brought up in this debate. It is often asked as, “how good could God have possibly created the universe…?” It isn’t needed, on my part however, in order to establish the contradiction at the outset, which is why I don’t include in the list of “contradictory attributes”. However, since it has been brought up, it is necessary that I should respond to it. And since you brought up omniscience, perhaps you now understand, unlike Ghosty, that it is now my prerogative to respond to it.

The notion of a good and omnipotent God seems to contradict itself. Not only is his supposed product (i.e. universe, multiverse etc) NOT a reflection of good, but the very nature of omnipotence requires knowledge of the greatest good AND the darkest evils. So if one would argue against the “evil” nature of God, could you not accept instead a sort of nuetrality that would result from having all the best thoughts, AND all of the worst? Certainly compassion and love were created by him, but so was hate and fear. Thus reflecting a nuetral stance like that of nature.