Barbershop

Originally posted by Conrau K
No, theists say that evil is a product of free will, not a requirement. You will also find a number of theists (and atheists) who do not find free will incompatible with determinism, or even that omniscience implies determinism.

I haeve never heard of the term "omnibenevolent" outside this site. It is not one of the "3 Os". The three O's are: omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.

Those three O's are much more compatible. Do you agree then that God is not omnibenevolent?

Originally posted by whiterose
My definition of omnipotence was straight out of the dictionary. If theists use a different one then you should have given me the definition you were using.

Yes, but as I demonstrated, you are taking it to an extreme. God's Omnipotence means he can do anything, apart from things logically impossible and against his will.

This definition is from http://www.answers.com/omnipotence&r=67 and pretty much sums it up:

God is able to do everything that is in accord with his own nature (thus he is not able to lie, for instance, since what God speaks is truth by definition). God is able to intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics and probability, since they are not part of his nature, but constructs of a physical world.

As I explained when theists make the statement "God can do anything" you missaprehend the use of the word "can".

Originally posted by whiterose
Those three O's are much more compatible. Do you agree then that God is not omnibenevolent?

Most religions impute a characteristic similar to omnibenevolence, so it is fine to use the word "omnibenevolence". I, having not met God, cannot comment if he is omnibenevolent.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, but as I demonstrated, you are taking it to an extreme. God's Omnipotence means he can do anything, apart from things logically impossible and against his will.

This definition is from http://www.answers.com/omnipotence&r=67 and pretty much sums it up:

[i]God is able to do everything that is in accord with his own nature (thus he is not able to ...[text shortened]... heists make the statement "God can do anything" you missaprehend the use of the word "can".

Are not the laws of logic a construct of the physical world as well? Why should He then not be able to supersede those? As I said before, superseding the laws of physics is a logical impossibility, so either God can do things that are logically impossible or He cannot.
What is this "nature" that you keep refering to? You have only ever given examples of nature with regards to humans, and I see no reason why a God should have a nature akin to a human.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Most religions impute a characteristic similar to omnibenevolence, so it is fine to use the word "omnibenevolence". I, having not met God, cannot comment if he is omnibenevolent.

So is omnibenevolence one of the characterstics of the Christian God, in which case I suppose there are four O's, or isn't it?


Nice dodging of the question, by the way. If nobody attributed characteristics to a God they had not met, there would be very few religious people in the world.

Originally posted by whiterose
Are not the laws of logic a construct of the physical world as well? Why should He then not be able to supersede those? As I said before, superseding the laws of physics is a logical impossibility, so either God can do things that are logically impossible or He cannot.
What is this "nature" that you keep refering to? You have only ever given examples of ...[text shortened]... re with regards to humans, and I see no reason why a God should have a nature akin to a human.

Logic is not a physical construct. There is a difference between a square circle, and an object defying gravity.

The nature is the source of action. In modern terms it might be comparable to the consciousness, or to the will. It is essentially what defines you.

Having not met God, nor experienced any supernatural phenomena, I am unable to give you a description of what God's nature is like. I can only use analogies to humans (or anything else with a nature). However, an active being with no nature would be a contradiction.

Originally posted by whiterose
So is omnibenevolence one of the characterstics of the Christian God, in which case I suppose there are four O's, or isn't it?


Nice dodging of the question, by the way. If nobody attributed characteristics to a God they had not met, there would be very few religious people in the world.

Goodness is a characteristic of the Christian God, yes. But there are a number of other characteristics ascribed to God, as well. This does not mean 4O's and 2G's or whatever. The three O's are possessed by God, formally. That is they are part of his being. Omnibenevolence is something possessed eminently, meaning that he is the source of benevolence everywhere.

You asked me personally if God is omnibenevolent. How on earth am I supposed to know that? Perhaps I don't even believe in God.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Theists typically state that the presence of evil is a requirement of free will, however, free will is a crock, since an omniscient God knows everything you will do, and therefore your choice is limited. An omnibenevolent god, who is also omnipotent, would not allow the presence of evil.

I've already explained how free will and omniscience need not be incompatible in my Dr who series. I think your position is reasonable on this but I also think that there is another way of looking at it that is also reasonable . If you think my postion on the three O's is rubbish then you need to say why and you need to refute the argument with a counter argument.

By the way do you think that the USA is the world's military superpower?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Logic is not a physical construct. There is a difference between a square circle, and an object defying gravity.

The nature is the source of action. In modern terms it might be comparable to the consciousness, or to the will. It is essentially what defines you.

Having not met God, nor experienced any supernatural phenomena, I am unable to give you a ...[text shortened]... anything else with a nature). However, an active being with no nature would be a contradiction.

By defining nature (or consciousness, or will) as being the source of an action, you put it within physical bounderies. As you have already stated, God is outside of the laws of physics, so why should He have a nature (or a consciousness, or a will)? Why is it necesary for an action to have a source if you are operating outside physical laws? Isn't God supernatural(i.e. above nature)?

Originally posted by whiterose
By defining nature (or consciousness, or will) as being the source of an action, you put it within physical bounderies. As you have already stated, God is outside of the laws of physics, so why should He have a nature (or a consciousness, or a will)? Why is it necesary for an action to have a source if you are operating outside physical laws? Isn't God supernatural(i.e. above nature)?

How does it put it in physical boundaries? What is a God (or in fact anything) without a will?

An action presupposes a source. If there is an action we ascribe it to a source. To an active person, we apply a nature.

And you are being deliberately obtuse. Supernatural does mean "above nature" but unless you are being a stubborn idiot then should realize that this is a very different type of nature (i.e. of the physical world).

Originally posted by whiterose
Are not the laws of logic a construct of the physical world as well? Why should He then not be able to supersede those? As I said before, superseding the laws of physics is a logical impossibility, so either God can do things that are logically impossible or He cannot.
What is this "nature" that you keep refering to? You have only ever given examples of ...[text shortened]... re with regards to humans, and I see no reason why a God should have a nature akin to a human.

"As I said before, superseding the laws of physics is a logical impossibility"

I disagree , I think it's most likely infact. Please read my thread Dr who (part 3) "the probability of impossibility" (page 2)

You have also made a context error here. The laws of the physical world are not the same as the abstract laws of logic.

Questions like - Can time travel happen? Can 3dimensional space time be warped ? Can gravity be defied without energy? Does time exist outside/ before the universe? -----are all scientific questions of possibility.

Questions like---Can God commit suicide? Can God create a rock big enough that he can't lift it? Can God choose to be less than ominpotent for a reason? ---are all philosophical questions of possibility.

It is quite reasonable for Conrau to talk about logic in a philosophical sense and refer to logic in a scientific sense differently because they are different.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, but as I demonstrated, you are taking it to an extreme. God's Omnipotence means he can do anything, apart from things logically impossible and against his will.

Like creating matter and energy?

Originally posted by Conrau K
How does it put it in physical boundaries? What is a God (or in fact anything) without a will?

An action presupposes a source. If there is an action we ascribe it to a source. To an active person, we apply a nature.

And you are being deliberately obtuse. Supernatural does mean "above nature" but unless you are being a stubborn idiot then should realize that this is a very different type of nature (i.e. of the physical world).

Supernatural means above the laws of the natural world. "An action presupposes a source" is a statement that can only exist within the laws of physics, thus withins the natural world. Therefore, you can apply it to humans (within nature) but not to God (above nature). The problem is that you are using human constructs such as "will" and "nature" to attempt to describe something which is completely above all human constructs.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Goodness is a characteristic of the Christian God, yes. But there are a number of other characteristics ascribed to God, as well. This does not mean 4O's and 2G's or whatever. The three O's are possessed by God, formally. That is they are part of his being. Omnibenevolence is something possessed eminently, meaning that he is the source of benevolence everyw ...[text shortened]... mnibenevolent. How on earth am I supposed to know that? Perhaps I don't even believe in God.

There is a difference between saying that God is the source of benevolence, in which case He could also be the source of malevolence, and saying that God is omnibenevolent. So I guess your answer is that the Christian God is not necessarily omnibenevolent, but that He does do benevolent things.

As for my question, if you don't believe in God, then you certainly wouldn't believe He is omnibenevolent(although you have already said you are a theist).
If you do believe in God(as I presumed because you have said as much in other threads), then you may or may not believe He is omnibenevolent, which is what I was asking. To say you don't know because you have never met him is just being obtuse.