Originally posted by josephw
amannion
[b]"Perhaps, but you still need to justify why the all powerful god allows evil to exist."
Not perhaps. The question, up to this point, isn't about why God allows evil to exist. The question is about how an omni-powerful God can exist while evil continues. rwingett seems to think that since evil exists a perfect God cannot.
logical rationale for the non existence of an omnipowerful God?[/b]
"Furthermore you are implicitly assuming that if there be a god then it necessarily follows it be an omni-god - this also is not justified (and far less justified than my first contention)."
It's not an assumption Agerg. Besides, that is not what is being debated thus far even though everyone seems intent on throwing me of track.(Now I'm assuming)
If omnipowerful does not include omnibenevolence then I agree, on the other hand, if it *does* include omnibenevolence then it *is* logical to say this particular notion of god is inconsistent with evil. As per the thread which gave to yours here, we need only look for at least one example where your god could have been more benevolent with respect to some nasty situation and we're done.
Now the standard theistic response is a general argument that the lord works in mysterious ways, he knows best, we cannot calculate how things would be worse for us were he to act differently, and so on...
I find that a simple response to this is to
a) Choose a particular type of scenario - a brutal, and painful murder.
b) Choose a particular type of person X being murdered - an atheist! We know from standard theistic doctrines that either this person is fated to have an eternal death or shall burn in hell forever.
c) Consider a form of intervention that does not negatively affect any other human.
From (a) we know that a lack of intervention on the part of your god leads to the gruesome and very painful physical death of some person in (b). Moreover, the argument that your god can see that things would be better for this human without its intervention is rendered moot by the fact that he either dies eternally or burns in hell eternally.
Thus the question remains as to which is kinder (attending to (c) above):
i) Person X gets murdered, and your god intervenes to make the physical death swift and painless[1] before whatever non-advanategeous fate awaits him after death.
ii) Person X gets murdered, and is not spared by your god from the excrutiating pain, agony, and torment prior to his physical death; and then goes on to whatever non-advanategeous fate awaits him after death.
--------------------------------------------------------
1) and we can suppose your god may animate the lifeless body so it appears to the murderer that he is is successful in causing extreme suffering (to preempt any argument that the murderer may feel less compelled to avoid murdering others in future if they appear to die without suffering.)