#OMNIPOTENCE OMNISCIENCE OMNIPRESENCE OMNIBENEVOLENCE FREE#
But without the consequences, free will is meaningless. That means people can choose to do things that affect other people, and innocent people get hurt.
Nonsense is still nonsense."Īnyway, it certainly is possible for God to be omnipotent and also omnibenevolent. Lewis said "Putting 'God can,' in front of it doesn't give it special signifigance. I agree with the previous person about the first contradiction there will always be paradoxes. Another thing, if evil did not exist, neither could good, which in turn would remove God's omnibenevolent status, which cannot be since good and evil obviously exist, allowing omnibenevolence to exist, which just leads to another paradox. As for whether He could create such a rock, you may as well create a number higher than infinity because if we are to assume he could do everything logically possible, then it should make sense because it is illogical that a stone God could not lift can exist. Also, I doubt God could change the future to a point where He could no longer foresee the effects because since He knows everything, He'd know any effects as well. But paradoxes and the like are still beyond our comprehension, which here means "I don't think we're ready yet to answer if God is be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent at the same time."īut if you wanted one now, my current progress yields that people aren't yet aware of how much freedom God gave them in their lives. After all, logic is what keeps are heads from hurting too much when we question how things work (or maybe it just makes our heads hurt even more.) I'm not saying we should avoid the question, because otherwise we'd all be rather ignorant and this thread probably wouldn't be here today. You may as well ask how a man who goes back in time to inspire his younger self to find a way to do so is perfectly logical, (assuming tempering with the time stream is possible) or how saying "I am always lying." can be fully comprehensible, or where a circle begins, or, forgive the meme, if Chuck Norris can create a man who could defeat him.īut to answer the question: Are three impossibilities compatible? I say we're still not at the minimum level of sentience yet we have enough trouble deciding whether the chicken or the egg came first, let alone comprehending a paradox. You may as well question the existence of a paradox, because you'll probably make as much sense out of it as you would here. This leads to questions like: "Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?" Finally, he may both know what's going and and be able to stop it, in which case he isn't omnibenevolent at all. If he doesn't know what's going on, but is able to stop it, assuming that the hypothetical being is omnibenevolent (Although it may not be), then he is not omniscient. Surely an omnibenevolent God would've stopped the evil from occuring? If he is unable to stop it, although he knows it's happening, then he is not omnipotent. Secondly, the very existence of evil and suffering here disproves that God is omnibenevolent & omnipotent & omniscient.
So he could change the future so he does not know the future - but then he has to know the future.and the result is that the concept of omnipotence and omniscience is impossible. Simultaneously, he must also have the power to change the future because he is omnipotent. The reason is because if God knows everything, he must know the future. Omnibenevolence (which isn't a real word): God is all-good.įirstly, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that Omniscience and Omnipotence is mutually incompatible.
In some versions, it is changed to "God can do anything logically possible." (the parts that have been bolded were not so in the original text, but highlighted for convenience)
0 kommentar(er)
