Why Call Him God?

[naomi24]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?





So why call him God?



(Note to the pedantic: The last two lines have been added to the original written by Greek philosopher, Epicurus).

[LazyGun]

But all religions claim god does give a stuff, sharingan. All Abrahamic religions, at least. And all claim that god is benevolent, that god is love, that god listens to and responds to intecessory prayer. For some religions, god has cared enough to apparently create an eternal paradise and an eternal abyss in the afterlife for us.

So the quotation in the OP is entirely apt when considering any of those major gods of which people believe in, since it is testing the very claims that these religions make.

[jim360]

Well thank you for sticking up for me Shar but I fundamentally disagree with that assessment. For me, either God exists and cares, or He may as well not exist at all. So when I am playing "God's advocate", it is for a caring God.

Why does God need to care? Otherwise you have a God who presumably created the Universe, so that all unanswered questions in Science have in fact the answer "that's just the way God made it". Which, if not impossible, is certainly not ideal when trying to understand the Universe.

Also, at a fundamental level everyone cares about what they make, to some extent. Unless He was so disgusted with how it went that He walked away. But at some point He would have cared -- do you make something, "see that it is good", and then ignore it immediately afterwards?

No. God cares, or does not exist.

[ludwig]

// there is no answer to these sorts of questions, there's only to and fro from people like Jim and I playing God's advocate and people like Naomi. //

That's the whole point of religious debate though isn't it? If god would turn up and tell us the answer it would save a whole lot of time, trouble, and suffering, but he doesn't, and we can't otherwise know the answers, so we ask questions like this and discuss them.

[Old_Geezer]

Surely folk ought not assume they are important enough to tell God what God must or must not do.

No, I don't accept that if one considers one thing a human concept then it follows all others have to be also.

[ludwig]

// Surely folk ought not assume they are important enough to tell God what God must or must not do //

When did that happen?

[LazyGun]

O_G "Surely folk ought not assume they are important enough to tell God what God must or must not do."

LoL. That presupposes a god exists at all, of course- which there is no evidence whatsoever for, but hey ho, each to their own, I suppose.

Speaking hypothetically for a moment, and assuming there were a god - why should his creations not question why they are here, why they were created, what aid or help he might be able to offer?
According to you, the reason god never responds is we are simply too insignificant to care - thats only barely one step up from being malevolent, in my book, and certainly no advert for religion...

Evil is a man made construct, I would agree. As is god. You can feel free to agree or disagree,but evidence and probability favours my position over yours, I think...

[naomi24]

Pixi, //you just said yourself you have no respect for and cant conceal your disdain for people who are religious//

I have? I can’t find it. Where in this …..

*and by choosing to continually display your adopted religion, which you do, you are voluntarily exposing it to scrutiny and, therefore, you cannot expect other contributors to agree with it, to respect it, or to conceal their disdain for archaic philosophies that promote lies as fact*

…. have I mentioned ‘people who are religious’? I refer you back to the Witchcraft thread and my post today at 13.33.

[jomifl]

O_G, If they assume that god doesn't exist then they can they can say what they like.

[naomi24]

Pixi, // why ask questions such as this?//

Because if others fail to see the logic that I see in that question, I would like to know why they can’t.

[jim360]

Ah, so you are essentially not interested in believing any counter-arguments? :)

[pdust]

*and by choosing to continually display your adopted religion*

doesnt that refer to people who are religious? im sure people who arent religious wouldnt be (in your words) displaying religion... if it doesnt refer to people who are religious could you please explain to me what you mean

[naomi24]

LG, //The Logical Problem of Evil, considered by many to be one of the most formidable objections to the existence of God, was first identified in antiquity by Epicurus when he noted that there were four possibilities:

1) If God wishes to take away evils and is not able to, then he is feeble.
2) If God is able to take away evils but does not wish to, then he is malevolent.
3) If God neither wishes to nor is able to take away evils, then he is both malevolent and feeble and therefore not God at all.
4) If God wishes to take away evils and is able to, then why are there evils in the world, and why does he not remove them?//

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_philosophy_of_religion.html



Something else that might interest you.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/history/did-epicurus-really-state-epicurus-paradox-t23445.html

[naomi24]

Pixi, I meant what I said.

//you are voluntarily exposing it [your religion] to scrutiny //

[naomi24]

Jim, //Ah, so you are essentially not interested in believing any counter-arguments?//

I didn't say that - and I haven't offered an argument. I've simply posted a question. Please don't make assumptions - it can be very misleading.

[LazyGun]

Thanks Naomi - Interesting discussion piece, that is - especially from fustibarican or whatever his name is :)

[jim360]

You wanted to know why others "fail to see the logic". It's not too much of a stretch to suggest that you are already convinced by this argument and want to know why others are not.

[naomi24]

Jim, //It's not too much of a stretch to suggest that you are already convinced by this argument and want to know why others are not.//

That is entirely right – but since I have no idea what responses this thread may elicit, you are entirely wrong to suggest that I am essentially not interested in believing any counter-arguments.

[vetuste_ennemi]

The argument that evil is a possible (if not necessary) consequence of free will presents a contradiction to the Christian believer to which Jim alludes: if there is free will in heaven then there can be no certainty that heaven will be a place of eternal bliss. In fact sin could occur again instigating a fresh cycle of condemnation, sacrifice and redemption. The only time I have seen this contradiction acknowledged is in the book Khandro mentioned written by Polkinghorne the man from Queens’. Polkinghorne’s attempt to resolve it is delightful: “… the immanence and immediacy of the divine presence..” or something along those lines.

[ludwig]

// It's not too much of a stretch to suggest that you are already convinced by this argument and want to know why others are not. //

What's wrong with presenting an argument that you're already convinced of, and inviting others to offer reasons why they're not?
If it's against the Site Rules, you'd better get over to the news section and point this out. They're all at it over there.

[jim360]

Well I'd certainly not be surprised if you criticise any counter-arguments if you don't think they stand up to scrutiny. Have any yet? I don't think so either.