I’ll break it down like this. Is all suffering necessary? Like do infants really need to get leukemia to achieve God’s grand plan? Does he have the power to achieve his goal without giving infants leukemia?
It boils down to the fact that either he is not able to, and therefore not all powerful, or he is and chooses to give babies cancer anyway, and therefore not all good.
You seem to think that God is a micromanager which decide everything. It’s not the Biblical God. This is explained by the myth of creation (yes it’s a myth, but it’s not because it’s not historical that it’s not meaningful). Evil and suffering wasn’t in God’s plan. What was in God’s plan, was freedom for the Creation, which is not possible without an alternative: follow God’s will, or not. The Creation chose to try an other way, and God cried. But he respected the choice.
Did God create the universe? Did he know evil and suffering would occur before he created the universe? Could he have created the universe another way?
If the answer to all 3 is yes, everything must be according to his plan. If the answer to any is no, you have to get rid of either all-knowing or all-powerful.
I guess my next question would be why would it be impossible? I’ll accept that he can’t do logically impossible things, like make a square circle, but the idea that he could have made changes to nature is not logically impossible.
His wish is for the creation to be free of suffering. If he forced that, there wouldn’t be freedom. And by freedom I’m not speaking about human agency, but the metaphysical capacity of the cosmos to be something God doesn’t want.
If your definition of omnipotence includes the ability to do the impossible, then, as a Christian, I have no problem saying that God is not omnipotent, but that is merely a matter of wordplay.
Like I said, if it’s your definition, then I have no problem saying that God is not omnipotent. It’s not a gotcha when I already said that I agreed with that…
I’ll break it down like this. Is all suffering necessary? Like do infants really need to get leukemia to achieve God’s grand plan? Does he have the power to achieve his goal without giving infants leukemia?
It boils down to the fact that either he is not able to, and therefore not all powerful, or he is and chooses to give babies cancer anyway, and therefore not all good.
You seem to think that God is a micromanager which decide everything. It’s not the Biblical God. This is explained by the myth of creation (yes it’s a myth, but it’s not because it’s not historical that it’s not meaningful). Evil and suffering wasn’t in God’s plan. What was in God’s plan, was freedom for the Creation, which is not possible without an alternative: follow God’s will, or not. The Creation chose to try an other way, and God cried. But he respected the choice.
Did God create the universe? Did he know evil and suffering would occur before he created the universe? Could he have created the universe another way?
If the answer to all 3 is yes, everything must be according to his plan. If the answer to any is no, you have to get rid of either all-knowing or all-powerful.
I say no to the last one. But that doesn’t mean he’s not all-powerful in the proper sense of the word, because he can’t do impossible things.
I guess my next question would be why would it be impossible? I’ll accept that he can’t do logically impossible things, like make a square circle, but the idea that he could have made changes to nature is not logically impossible.
He can change nature. But not in a way that would preserve freedom and make nature obey all his wishes at the same time. That is the squared circle.
I’m not talking about obeying his wishes, I’m talking about unnecessary suffering. Could he make a world with free will and no baby cancer?
His wish is for the creation to be free of suffering. If he forced that, there wouldn’t be freedom. And by freedom I’m not speaking about human agency, but the metaphysical capacity of the cosmos to be something God doesn’t want.
Either God created that capacity (literally nothing can exist if he does not will it), or there are higher metaphysical concepts than God.
Oh? So he’s not omnipotent then?
I’ll cite myself one message higher:
The passive-aggressive “as per my last email” doesn’t magically make that bs make sense. You do understand that, right?
Omnipotence is defined as “unlimited power”. god can’t do X -> god is not omnipotent. Extremely simple stuff if you’re not an apologist.
Like I said, if it’s your definition, then I have no problem saying that God is not omnipotent. It’s not a gotcha when I already said that I agreed with that…