Cid

Not if allowing evil in this temporary universe is the only way that evil can be permanently defeated, and it appears from what we have learned about God and reality that that is probably the case.

How can you limit an omnipotent god to an 'only way'?

Besides, he created evil in the first place - being omnipotent, he's the only one who could have done it.

And all evil directly accords with his will - he omnisciently foresaw the whole of time and space back before he made the universe, and approved it as exactly what he wants, down to the tiniest detail.

May 8, 2012 -- 7:24AM, Ken wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 12:20AM, El Cid wrote:

Mar 29, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Ken wrote:

If God foresaw evil and didn't revise his design to remove it from the beginning, he was either incompetent or evil.

Not if allowing evil in this temporary universe is the only way that evil can be permanently defeated, and it appears from what we have learned about God and reality that that is probably the case.

That cannot possibly be the case. You don't understand omnipotence. An omnipotent God has no need to employ means to an end. The moment he thinks "I want the world to be rid of evil," evil will disappear. The only way evil can exist in this universe is if he wants it to exist.

I have noticed a lot of Christians seem to not realise they do not actually see their own god as omnipotent, but rather with all kinds of limitations. And yet if you call them on it they say he is. But then I also don't think many know what omnipotent  means.

I find it bizarre, but of course it allows them an out for explanations that make no sense.

May 8, 2012 -- 2:10PM, amcolph wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 1:46PM, mainecaptain wrote:

I have noticed a lot of Christians seem to not realise they do not actually see their own god as omnipotent, but rather with all kinds of limitations. And yet if you call them on it they say he is. But then I also don't think many know what omnipotent  means.

I find it bizarre, but of course it allows them an out for explanations that make no sense.

The way it's used, it is more by way of being an honorific, rather than a descriptor.

You can't just take "omni" and put it in front of an adjective which we only have experience of in finite entities and have it mean anything.

"Omnipotent" has no concrete referent, whether God exists or not.

To the logical mind that makes sense. Keep in mind I am not an atheist. But I also do not think any god is omnipotent.

But many people have said their god meaning the Abrahamic one is all powerful. And when you pin them down on their description, they describe omnipotent.

You have never done this, But many I have read here, and even in real life do describe the Abrahamic god in those terms.

ec:  No, He did foresee it. See my post on page 405 about free will being what he wanted. He designed things the way He wanted them. Everything that happened and will happen is part of His plan to rid the universe of evil. 

>>>>>>>A god allowing or creating evil in the universe so that he would have to defeat it?  This is something you have learned but it doesn't fit with what life does.  Life is transitory and at least sentient beings learn.  Evolution and reincarnation are better descriptions of what is going on.  Even a rock is eternal.  Everything in a rock is from the "beginning" and it will be spread throughout the universe in the trillions of years to come.  You are eternal, so don't worry about it.  

Mar 29, 2012 -- 9:58AM, Blü wrote:

Cid

The premises that the universe is an effect (most cosmologists agree with this premise even though technically it may not be testable).

blu: Yup.  It could be uncaused.

Now, if it's not caused - a possibility you've just admitted - then the cosmological argument fails then and there.

No, I didn't admit it here. I just said it may not be TESTABLE. Not being testable does not mean it does not have a cause. All the evidence points to the universe having a cause. All macro effects have causes, and the origin of a universe is plainly a macro event. 

blu: So I take it you now admit that even if it were right in its other claims, the cosmological argument isn't capable of compeling any particular conclusion about the origin of the universe, right?

It compels the rational conclusion that the universe has a cause. You can come to irrational conclusions of course. But the evidence points to the rational conclusion that the universe has a cause.