Why do theists tout the absurd idea that an omnipotent omniscient deity requires humans to communicate its message and create and enforce its laws?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:29 am

This has always struck me as something of an absurdity. Especially when you can't fail to notice that the laws always reflect the ignorance superstition wishes desires and prejudices of those claiming this divine authority, which surely is too much of a coincidence for any halfway intelligent and objective observer to ignore.

by polyglide Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:49 am

DR, Sheldon,
You mean like inflation running at 100% and the gravity of it all indicating that it is almost possible for something to start before it begins.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:56 pm

No. I haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about but it clearly isn't remotely relevant to my thread title and opening question. Try and consider what an omniscient omnipotent deity would be able to do and communicate.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:52 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
You mean like inflation running at 100% and the gravity of it all indicating that it is almost possible for something to start before it begins.

"Inflation as measured by the Consumer Prices Index dropped to 0.3% last month, from 0.5% in December according to the Office for National Statistics. The rate of Retail Prices Index (RPI) inflation, which is calculated differently, also continued a downward trend, falling to 1.1%, down from 1.6%. The Bank of England said last week that inflation may temporarily turn negative in the spring."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10612209

Now I have no idea what relevance you think inflation has to this thread, but your claim is absurdly wrong anyway. For someone who constantly entreats others to read what is written you don't half produce some bizarre and irrelevant responses.

Now why is it that a deity that is claimed to possess both omniscience and omnipotence requires humans to communicate and enforce it's laws and desires? When you've considered this you might want to consider why those divine laws and desires so often reflect the very human desires of the people claiming they know what a deity wants, it's hardly a coincidence that throughout the world and throughout history deities are created that always mirror the people and societies that create them. Men create gods in their image, not the other way around.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:55 am

The OT is full of tales of God encouraging his "chosen people" to commit genocide or ethnic cleansing on other tribes or people.

Now for a deity that purportedly wants nothing more than to have its existence acknowledged and all people to love it, a task an omnipotent deity could achieve instantly anyway by will alone, doesn't this strike everyone as an absurdly barbaric waste for a deity that is alsoclaimed to be benevolent?

Of course if these tales wereviewed as entirely human histories then it makes perfect sense for people competing for resources and land to fight each other in this way as they would have known no better.

For an omniscient and omnipotent deity to encourage such behaviour hardly indicates perfect morality, and raises the question as to whether theists are claiming an action is made moral because God wills it. Thus as William Lane Craig laughably suggests genocide was made morally good or desirable.

Anyone elses think such a stance is crying out to evoke Godwin's law?

by polyglide Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:56 am

DR, Sheldon,
You speak as a Heathen and not as a religious person.

All the points you raise are covered by the Bible's teaching.

Please substantiate your claims using the New Testamnet.

As I have stated previously, I am not interested in the Old Testament, unless it is refered to in the New Testament.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:57 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
You speak as a Heathen and not as a religious person.

All the points you raise are covered by the Bible's teaching.

Please substantiate your claims using the New Testamnet.

As I have stated previously, I am not interested in the Old Testament, unless it is refered to in the New Testament.

A HEATHEN?? By crikey, what century do you live in polyglide? The bible is not CLEAR on any of the things you profess are true. You have never presented a single FACT about anything that you have claimed.

You would do better to say 'in my opinion' or 'that's what I believe even though I can't present any evidence for my claims'. If you said that, I can accept that. What I can't accept is you telling me that your belief is 'true' and then you present no evidence to prove it.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:47 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
You speak as a Heathen and not as a religious person.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Hahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahsha, brilliant.

All the points you raise are covered by the Bible's teaching.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:All the points I raised are precisely because biblical texts are irrational, illogical, contradictory, hokum.

Please substantiate your claims using the New Testamnet.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:My claim related precisely to tales from the OT, it says so quite clearly in my post, if you want to start a thread on the NT or why it negates the inerrant word of your god for more than half of the bible feel free to do so, in this thread either say something salient or leave it alone.

As I have stated previously, I am not interested in the Old Testament, unless it is refered to in the New Testament.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You're like a loud tedious repetitive drunk who keeps crashing the conversations of others and can't grasp why no one wants to talk to him. This thread has a topic, no one cares what you do or do not find relevant, either contribute to the topic or leave it alone. Good grief....

by polyglide Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:12 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Because Christianity is based on faith and if God came to earth and decided everything man would not have free will.

Man was given all that is necessary to find God and live a perfect life, it is man alone who has brought all the ills of the world through thinking he knows best and his assosiation with Satan.

(I bet you have not attempted to make contact with the spirit world yet because you would not be laughing now)

There is no doubt that much of the Bible is symbolic.

Reverlations involves many things that are impossible to be so.

This is a clear indication that they are not to be taken as read,

Anyone with any common sense would realise that if there was going to be a book written to inform of an important event then the person or persons reponsible would not include disputable facts unless there was a reason for including them because they were in some way relevant.

I do not drink, I do not smoke, I do not swear and I am as much a sinner as anyone else, what I am not is a sanctimonious hypocrit.

by polyglide Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:31 am

"Merda taurorum animas conturbit"

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:21 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Because Christianity is based on faith and if God came to earth and decided everything man would not have free will.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It's already been shown that a being with omniscience by definition of the word would know the future. Thus the existence of such a being would entirely negate free will.

Man was given all that is necessary to find God and live a perfect life,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Humans evolved. This is a scientific fact.

it is man alone who has brought all the ills of the world through thinking he knows best and his assosiation with Satan.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Satanic fantasies aside, how can humans be responsible for things like the suffering from predation? This was ubiquitous in the animal kingdom for 100s of millions of years before humans evolved.

(I bet you have not attempted to make contact with the spirit world yet because you would not be laughing now)
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:To be fair I already stated that it's complete guff, so your assertion hardly represents a gamble. This delusion may be something you're happy to indulge, but I have zero interest in such obviously puerile nonsense. I am laughing though.

There is no doubt that much of the Bible is symbolic.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:There is no doubt that much of it is palpably erroneous, and a great deal of it is puerile nonsense. Claiming a being with both limitless intelligence and power would deal in allegory that just happens to reflect human superstitions of the era the texts originate is laughably absurd.

Reverlations involves many things that are impossible to be so. This is a clear indication that they are not to be taken as read, Anyone with any common sense would realise that if there was going to be a book written to inform of an important event then the person or persons reponsible would not include disputable facts unless there was a reason for including them because they were in some way relevant.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Risible nonsense, and its revelation not reverlation (sic). A being that possessed both omniscience and omnipotence would hardly deal in false erroneous babble if it wanted humans to accept it was divinely inspired. That idea doesn't support the claims it is from a benevolent deity, but it does offend human intelligence.

I do not drink, I do not smoke, I do not swear and I am as much a sinner as anyone else, what I am not is a sanctimonious hypocrit.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I fail to see how taking a drink or having the occasional smoke or even resorting to the odd vituperation could offend an omniscient deity. I'm sorry to say this Polyglide but your posts on quite a few occasions have been hypocritical and sanctimonious. All humans are fall8ble and capable of behavibg on occasuon in waystheyd perhaps rather not. Though I don't accept the laughable notion of biblical sin. The idea that all humans are cursed from birth is one of Christianity's mores absurd and offensive ideas.

by Norm Deplume Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:26 pm

polyglide wrote:
There is no doubt that much of the Bible is symbolic.
Reverlations involves many things that are impossible to be so.
This is a clear indication that they are not to be taken as read,

What is God a symbol for?
There is much more in the Bible that is impossible than the contents of the book of Revelation
This is a clear indication that they are not to be taken as sensible or real.

polyglide wrote:
Anyone with any common sense[1] would realise that if there was going to be a book written to inform of an important event then the person or persons reponsible would not include disputable facts unless there was a reason for including them because they were in some way relevant.

A moment's thought might lead to the conclusion that the content depends upon the intent.
Propaganda does not depend upon facts. The writers will throw in anything they think will produce the effect they are aiming for. The Bible is the equivalent of a party election manifesto.

polyglide wrote:
I do not drink, I do not smoke, I do not swear and I am as much a sinner as anyone else, what I am not is a sanctimonious hypocrit.

You may think that, I could not possibly comment.

Note [1] This is a fallacy called 'poisoning the well'. It is a frequent resort for people who know their arguments are weak.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:29 pm

polyglide wrote:"Merda taurorum animas conturbit"

If you're going to quote Latin it would be both courteous and useful to also post the translation.

by snowyflake Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:46 pm

polyglide wrote:

I do not drink, I do not smoke, I do not swear and I am as much a sinner as anyone else, what I am not is a sanctimonious hypocrit

I would not put that to a vote. Perhaps, because I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, you are not in your life as you appear on this forum. On this forum, you appear as a sanctimonious twat and your middle name is Hypocrite but you don't realise it.

Anyone calling themselves a Christian and making judgements about homosexuals or adulterers or homeless people or prostitutes or criminals or drug addicts is not in Christ.

YOUR JOB AS A CHRISTIAN IS TO LOVE.

You don't do that and you are about as loving, compassionate and kind as a rattle snake. The world doesn't need christians like you.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:44 pm

snowyflake wrote: YOUR JOB AS A CHRISTIAN IS TO LOVE. You don't do that and you are about as loving, compassionate and kind as a rattle snake. The world doesn't need christians like you.

He's started using Latin to make petty childish insults now. I can't decide of that's progress or not? confused

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:59 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Because Christianity is based on faith and if God came to earth and decided everything man would not have free will.

If a deity existed and was omnipotent it could of course will everyone to know it existed instantly and still keep free will. To suggest it couldn't do this quite obviously limits it's power, and of course it is then not an omnipotent god. This however was not the point of the thread. If as theists claim an omnipotent God exists, then why does this god need humans to interpret and enforce it's laws? It strikes me as massively egotistical for anyone to think they know what such a deity thinks and wants, and more than a little convenient that it always seems to think and want precisely what the theists themselves think and want.

by polyglide Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:00 am

Dr, Sheldon,
As an example of what I said on a previous post, the one I have just written vanished and so I have to start again.

God gave mankind a free choice after telling him what was in his best interests.

This has nothing to do with God's own powers.

Nor has it anything to do with God needing humans to justify his existance.

You fail to understand the conflict between God and Satan and the terms involved between the two.

We are not aware of just what the terms are so cannot comment in any meaningful manner, however, the present situation on earth gives many clues as to the stage the Bible predicts would come about if mankind went along the wrong path.

Just as a person could predict what would happen if you put your hand in a fire etc;

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 28, 2015 6:56 pm

polyglide wrote:God gave mankind a free choice after telling him what was in his best interests. This has nothing to do with God's own powers. Nor has it anything to do with God needing humans to justify his existance. You fail to understand the conflict between God and Satan and the terms involved between the two. We are not aware of just what the terms are so cannot comment in any meaningful manner, however, the present situation on earth gives many clues as to the stage the Bible predicts would come about if mankind went along the wrong path. Just as a person could predict what would happen if you put your hand in a fire etc;

The question I posited in the thread title was "Why do theists tout the absurd idea that an omnipotent omniscient deity requires humans to communicate its message and create and enforce its laws?"

So how exactly does your post answer this? Unless you're claiming that Satan is also omnipotent? Though of course it should take only a moments thought for any half way intelligent person to reason that the very nature of omnipotence rules out there being two such beings, thus in your chosen superstition the omnipotent being can will anything it chooses instantly. It seems the concept of your own religions claims about it's deity is beyond your intellect to fathom.

1. If a being exists with either omniscience or omnipotence then free will for humans would by definition be IMPOSSIBLE.
2. It's existence, not "existance" (sic).
3. Making claims based on things "we're not aware of" is a well known and common logical fallacy, called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Look it up, I have mentioned it several times as you so often use it.
4. Nothing in the bible reads other than a superstition borne from that era, and you have been asked enough times without response to produce one of your claimed prophesies coming true for us all to see your claim is a lie.
5. I put my hand in my own fire several times a night, it never burns because science has created heat and fire retardant gloves, you were told this so why you reproduced this idiotic analogy I don't know.

by polyglide Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:40 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I said your hand, not a gloved hand.

Earthquakes in diverse places, brother fighting brother, pestilence, turning against God to name just a FEW.

As usual you do not understand a simple example.

So how about if you were told that your friend was going to jump off a 1,000ft building onto a concrete floor the next day, you would not consider he may have a headache.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:57 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I said your hand, not a gloved hand.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The distinction is unimportant to the point I was making as my hand is in the glove, and in the fire, and protected from burning by scientific knowledge, so I've no idea why you raise this, but FYI if you wanted to make the distinction you should have said bare hand.

Earthquakes in diverse places, brother fighting brother, pestilence, turning against God to name just a FEW.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Those are things that happen throughout human history and before, and certainly pre-date religion, claiming they represent prophesy is absurdly silly, I might as easily claim the sun will come up tomorrow and claim myself a prophet when it happens.

As usual you do not understand a simple example.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:A meaningless accusation because as is the case every time you use it you make no attempt to explain what you're claiming has not been understood, or why.

So how about if you were told that your friend was going to jump off a 1,000ft building onto a concrete floor the next day, you would not consider he may have a headache.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What on earth are you blathering about? Seriously I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

Why don't you ever quote the text you are responding to so everyone might have a clue what you're trying to say? You use silly analogies and cryptic nonsense and no one can fathom what on earth you're trying to say, then you rather hilariously accuse everyone of being unable to understand you.

These are the points I made:

1. If a being exists with either omniscience or omnipotence then free will for humans would by definition be IMPOSSIBLE.
2. It's existence, not "existance" (sic).
3. Making claims based on things "we're not aware of" is a well known and common logical fallacy, called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Look it up, I have mentioned it several times as you so often use it.
4. Nothing in the bible reads other than a superstition borne from that era, and you have been asked enough times without response to produce one of your claimed prophesies coming true for us all to see your claim is a lie.
5. I put my hand in my own fire several times a night, it never burns because science has created heat and fire retardant gloves, you were told this so why you reproduced this idiotic analogy I don't know.

You manage to respond to just one of those with an utterly pointless distinction which had no relevance to the point I had made about science and the scientific process. Any chance you can offer a cogent salient response to any of the points I made or the thread title?

by polyglide Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:34 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Omnipotence, unlimited power, omniscient, perceiving all things.

Now God is both of the above, however, what the revelance of the question is I do not know.

God can use the powers as and when he decides, he needs no help from heathens or anyone else other than Jesus.

It should be obvious to anyone that you are unable to understand that there is not only God involved but Satan and his gang.

God' hands and abilities are tied by agreement with Satan at the present time and you appear to think you know it all so should be well aware of the parts of the Bible that explain the matter and I should not have to point them out.

So the actual question you pose is pointless which is no suprise to me.

by Norm Deplume Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:28 pm

polyglide wrote:
It should be obvious to anyone that you are unable to understand that there is not only God involved but Satan and his gang.

God' hands and abilities are tied by agreement with Satan at the present time and you appear to think you know it all so should be well aware of the parts of the Bible that explain the matter and I should not have to point them out.

I do wonder how many other theists would agree with your implication that God cares more about deals with Satan than he does about the humans he supposedly loves?

by polyglide Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:14 am

Norm Deplume,
God had to answer the challenge put forward by Satan or there would probably have been more carnage and illness and brutallity than humans have had to deal with.

God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son as a ransome.

Now how much more loving could one get?

Before making remarks it is better to consider all that is actually involved it does help to come to a fairer conclusion.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:36 am

1. If a being exists with either omniscience or omnipotence then free will for humans would by definition be IMPOSSIBLE.
2. It's existence, not "existance" (sic).
3. Making claims based on things "we're not aware of" is a well known and common logical fallacy, called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Look it up, I have mentioned it several times as you so often use it.
4. Nothing in the bible reads other than a superstition borne from that era, and you have been asked enough times without response to produce one of your claimed prophesies coming true for us all to see your claim is a lie.

I've reposted these as your childish petty little rant hasn't addressed one of them. Try again and this time try leaving the childish ad hominem alone, and using actual evidence not bronze age superstitions which I have little interest in and are not salient to the points I made,or that you are trying your best to ignore because you have no answer to the logical contradictions involved, and are not clever enough to produce intelligent obfuscation, or honest enough to admit your superstition has no answer beyond blind faith.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:40 am

Polyglide wrote: God had to answer the challenge put forward by Satan or there would probably have been more carnage and illness and brutallity than humans have had to deal with.

Are you saying a being with both omniscience and omnipotence had no other choice? Can you really see no contradiction there?

by polyglide Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:45 am

Dr, Sheldon,
When talking about God and Satan we are not talking about the milkman and the butcher.

Of course God could have declined Satan's challenge but where would that have left mankind?.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:06 pm

Can you address the points I've made please. As your constantly ignoring what is posted and all questions asked is rude and tedious.

If you can't see that a being with both omnipotence and omniscience has limitless choices then all you're doing is showing you have no grasp of the concepts involved or the logical contradictions they create. God could destroy Satan and remove suffering completely in any way he chooses if he has omnipotence. This simple logical fact can't be explained away. Your analogy as usual is utterly indecipherable.

by Norm Deplume Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:24 pm

polyglide wrote:
God had to answer the challenge put forward by Satan or there would probably have been more carnage and illness and brutallity than humans have had to deal with.

I see your point. When the Bible records God getting involved it does lead to more death, destruction, carnage and pestilence. In human terms Satan is armed with a dagger and God with a nuclear bomb.

What was the nature of this challenge and where are the details. I know only of the bet in the book of Job.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:51 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
polyglide wrote:
God had to answer the challenge put forward by Satan or there would probably have been more carnage and illness and brutallity than humans have had to deal with.

What was the nature of this challenge and where are the details. I know only of the bet in the book of Job.

It's worth pointing out that Job was nothing to the devil, but was a devoted and loyal worshipper of God, who ruined his life and subjected him to unimaginable suffering just for a bet, only an imbecile would suggest such behaviour was indicative of benevolence. If god existed and was omnipotent he could destroy the devil, or better still make him do only good, the whole thing is too preposterous for words, and it always astounds me that people still fall for such guff.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:33 pm

polyglide wrote:Of course God could have declined Satan's challenge but where would that have left mankind?.

Since you claim your god is omnipotent then he could simply will Satan to do nothing but good deeds, just off the top of my head.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:19 am

This quote neatly dismantles Polyglide's claim that life was designed and created by a benevolent deity.

"Let us suppose, contrary to the scientific evidence, that life is the product of design. Then the prevelance of predation, paracitism, disease, and imperfect human organs strongly supports the view that such a designer is indifferent to us."

Professor Richard Dawkins

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:34 am

polyglide wrote:Norm Deplume, God had to answer the challenge put forward by Satan
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So god doesn't have free will then? Or omnipotence it seems? Then what you're describing is not God, or at least not the Abrahamic God under discussion here.

polyglide wrote:
or there would probably have been more carnage and illness and brutallity than humans have had to deal with.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Which an omnipotent deity could have stopped by will alone, and left free will intact, since by definition nothing is impossible for omnipotence. Only one l in brutality by the way, and after your embarrassing and arrogant insults about my smartphone typo with allude, oh dear.

polyglide wrote:
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son as a ransome.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It's ransom, there's no e at the end. Why would a benevolent deity insist on such a barbaric blood sacrifice, especially when it supposedly is omnipotent and benevolent and could therefore simply forgive the curse of sin. A curse by the way that it imposed in the first place, on beings it knew would transgress in exactly the way they did if it possessed omniscience as described. The whole thing is so full of holes it's absurd. That's before we examine the astonishing lack of any proper contemporary evidence that Jesus even existed at all, but is in fact mentioned decades later, and certainly not with compelling historical accounts that can be independently verified outside the anecdotal claims of the faithful.

polyglide wrote:
Now how much more loving could one get?
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What's loving about insisting your own son is barbarically and sadistically murdered? You have a truly bizarre sense of what is loving, but that aside this kind of sadistic power trip is anything but benevolent.

polyglide wrote:
Before making remarks it is better to consider all that is actually involved it does help to come to a fairer conclusion.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Ah, you end with a joke, well done. I thought from your posts you had no concept of irony, but it appears I was very wrong.

by polyglide Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:49 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I cannot understand why you cannot understand a simple explanation of a situation.

God's hands are tied at the present time I have given you the references that clearly indicate that this is the present situation.

You could have the strongest man physically and a weakling, tie the strong man up and give the weakling a hammer and all the strong man's abilities would be useless until freed.

God will show you how powerfull he is once he has given Satan his time.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:25 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I cannot understand why you cannot understand a simple explanation of a situation.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I can't understand why you think someone is unable to understand something just because they reject it as a made up fantasy.

God's hands are tied at the present time I have given you the references that clearly indicate that this is the present situation.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:A being with omnipotence can't have its power limited in the way you're describing, that's axiomatic. Look up omnipotent in any dictionary. Your "references" are pure unevidenced myths, they don't represent proper evidence for your claims any more than the myths about Hercules represent proper evidence for those claims.

You could have the strongest man physically and a weakling, tie the strong man up and give the weakling a hammer and all the strong man's abilities would be useless until freed.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Another irrelevant analogy as humans are not omnipotent.

YOU CAN'T LIMIT THE POWER OF AN OMNIPOTENT BEING.

I really can't dumb it down anymore than that.

God will show you how powerfull he is once he has given Satan his time.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Another unevidenced claim. Hitchen's razor applies, slash. That aside it still leaves the logical contradiction of your god is choosing to allow Satan a free hand, he could stop him if he existed and was omnipotent. If he chooses not to then he's not benevolent. If he can't for any reason then he's not by definition omnipotent. This is a simple premise which you seem unable to grasp??

by polyglide Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:01 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Just get someone to explain that an omnipotent being can either decide or not decide what to do, this in no way affects the ability.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:40 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Just get someone to explain that an omnipotent being can either decide or not decide what to do, this in no way affects the ability.

Get someone to read the many posts of mine explaining precisely this point to you. FFS poly are you being this obtuse deliberately.

If your god chooses to allow an evil demon it created free reign then that would make it logically impossible for that deity to be benevolent.

So after multiple explanations you're still unable to even grasp the basics of the paradox under discussion. God help us.....

by polyglide Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:28 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I have explained this in another post.

To allow a disobedient angel to have a chance to prove God wrong rather than just kill him off or at least take his powers away would not be benevolent but dictatorial.

God did not create a demon, he created a being that became a demon through choice.

regards.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:47 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I have explained this in another post.

To allow a disobedient angel to have a chance to prove God wrong rather than just kill him off or at least take his powers away would not be benevolent but dictatorial.

God did not create a demon, he created a being that became a demon through choice.

regards.

Firstly your "explanation" is no more than unevidenced hearsay. Since you can provide no evidence for the existence of God or Satan. Only bare claims based on ancient superstition.

Secondly you're again either ignoring or not understanding the consequences of such a being possessing omnipotence. You need to go away and study theodicy to see how spurious your explanation is, as an omnipotent being can do anything, literally. So your claim limiting it's choices contradicts the theological claim that your deity is omnipotent.

Read the quite from Epicurus, it's as thorough and simple an explanation of the logical contradictions facing theodicy as I've seen. What's more Epicurus thought of it before your religion existed.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:57 am

You seem to think two contradictory answers can be used in tandem. You first claim god is omnipotent but choose to allow suffering and evil. Then when this is pointed out to contradict benevolence in such a being you go back to suggesting god has no choice because he is allowing free will.

If your god is omnipotent why can't it stop evil, and suffering, and still preserve free will? You have no answer because the claimi creates a paradox.

Just as a being with omniscience would by definition know the future before it happened, and it's existence would make any choices we made an illusion Free will would be impossible. Free will is a misnomer anyway as our will has limits so is not free at all.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 4:07 pm

polyglide wrote: God did not create a demon, he created a being that became a demon through choice.

Are you saying that your omniscient deity didn't know this would happen? That would of course limit it's knowledge, and refute your religion's claim that it is omniscient.

Is the nature of the paradox starting to sink in yet?

by Sponsored content