To be Omnibenevolent is to love all beings. This is generally taken to mean love all humans. I don't have a whole lot to say on omnibenevolence that I won't be covering when I talk about the problem of evil. I am just going to explain some of the implications of this benevolence.
First off is that it is universal. For a God to be omnibenevolent, (S)He must love everyone. This means that there are no "chosen" people. The phrase "God is on our side" becomes empty. Even "God Bless us" becomes meaningless. God loves everyone, asking for his blessing is not only arrogant (I may eventually cover the arrogance of asking for God to help) but it useless. If God loves everybody then God won't give those who invoke his blessing more love.
Second omnibenevolence implies complete love. An omnibenevolent god wouldn't love someone more then anyone else. Everyone becomes equally loved in God's eyes. Even moral and immoral people. As you can see this opens a few problems when talking about subjects such as Heaven and Hell.
Thirdly, omnibenevolence can be taken as love for all of creation. This means that plants, animals, bacteria, viruses, planets, stars, galaxies, they all receive God's love. The astronomical bodies receiving love doesn't imply much, but all plants and animals and the whole world receiving God's love has huge implication when thinking about pollution and climate change. How can we willing destroy and change that which God has love for?
God or god(s) can have omnibenevolence. I don't see a problem with this idea. However if you assert omnibenevolence then you have to give up the idea that God favors a particular group of people. Equivalent Exchange again.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Omnipotence
To be omnipotent is to possess infinite power. One question posed when God is said to be omnipotent is: Can God create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?
This appears to be a deal breaker for omnipotence. However when you dive into the question you realized a few things. At first glance it seems that either answer to the question nulls God's omnipotence, but second glance reveals that the question is a contradiction and therefore has no effect on the state of God's omnipotence.
Can God create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it? If the answer is yes, then God is not omnipotent because there is something that his power cannot do. If the answer is no, then God is not omnipotent because he lacks the power to create such a huge rock.
However, the question is irrelevant. The question requires God to make a contradictory statement true. Which by definition is impossible. Should we demand that in order to have infinite power God most also be able to do the impossible? Not necessarily. Omnipotence can better be defined as being infinitely powerful to do anything logically possible.
However if we pose that God can only do the logically possible we are saying that he cannot do the logically impossible. Therefore God must follow the rules of logic. This also solves another problem that many theists use as an ad hoc solution to many problems about God, which is that we cannot understand God. If God must follow logic then we can logically think about and discover things about God.
(Note: Normally I do not defend the omni properties of God or god(s). However I thought it be important to support the possibility of omnipotence for multiple reasons. One: I currently have no reason to fight against omnipotence, it doesn't create a whole lot of problems if God is omnipotent or not. Two: It allows me to make the claim that God must follow the rules of logic and then I am able to remove one ad hoc theist explanation that does not promote thinking. The idea that we cannot understand God is simply a way to stop thinking about tough subjects. Being able to eliminate that ad hoc argument is important to me to keep people thinking on the subject.)
This appears to be a deal breaker for omnipotence. However when you dive into the question you realized a few things. At first glance it seems that either answer to the question nulls God's omnipotence, but second glance reveals that the question is a contradiction and therefore has no effect on the state of God's omnipotence.
Can God create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it? If the answer is yes, then God is not omnipotent because there is something that his power cannot do. If the answer is no, then God is not omnipotent because he lacks the power to create such a huge rock.
However, the question is irrelevant. The question requires God to make a contradictory statement true. Which by definition is impossible. Should we demand that in order to have infinite power God most also be able to do the impossible? Not necessarily. Omnipotence can better be defined as being infinitely powerful to do anything logically possible.
However if we pose that God can only do the logically possible we are saying that he cannot do the logically impossible. Therefore God must follow the rules of logic. This also solves another problem that many theists use as an ad hoc solution to many problems about God, which is that we cannot understand God. If God must follow logic then we can logically think about and discover things about God.
(Note: Normally I do not defend the omni properties of God or god(s). However I thought it be important to support the possibility of omnipotence for multiple reasons. One: I currently have no reason to fight against omnipotence, it doesn't create a whole lot of problems if God is omnipotent or not. Two: It allows me to make the claim that God must follow the rules of logic and then I am able to remove one ad hoc theist explanation that does not promote thinking. The idea that we cannot understand God is simply a way to stop thinking about tough subjects. Being able to eliminate that ad hoc argument is important to me to keep people thinking on the subject.)
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Omniscience vs Freewill and Evil
This is the first of three posts discussing the supposed "omni" (Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence) properties of God (When I use God here I am talking about the Abrahamic God).
To be Omniscient is to possess complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, and understanding; perceiving all things. God, with the capital G, is often stated as being omniscient. However there are a few problems that arise with omniscience. First off is freewill, second is the problem of evil.
Freewill is the ability to choose between one action and an opposing action. Society accepts that all of us have freewill. The criminal justice system is based off the belief that humans have freewill: if they had no power to choose there actions, punishing them for their actions would be immoral. However many people in society also believe in Fate and God's omniscience.
If God is omniscient, then there is no freewill. If God can see what action you are going to make, then you do not possess the ability to make a choice other then that action. If you could make such a choice, then God would have been wrong, and thus not omniscient. Some say that God knows all possible futures, and it is up to humans to choose which future they want by the choices they make. However this still implies a lack of knowledge on God's part, since he does not know what choice humans will make. Therefore God is not omniscient. In order to maintain God's omniscience, one must give up human's freewill (Equivalent Exchange for those of my readers who watch / read FMA).
Evil is a problem for the existence of an "Omni" God (A God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent). The problem of evil can be solved by conceding that God does not possess one or more of these omnis. If there is unnecessary evil in the world, a moral being would remove it if they possessed the power to remove it, the knowledge of the evil, and the love for those who it is hurting. If this being had the power to remove it, and the love of those who are hurt by it, but not the knowledge of the evil, then it is perfectly reasonable for unnecessary evil to exist. By concedding to the failure of God to possess one of those attributes the problem of evil starts to fade away.
When you combine the problem of Evil with the Freewill problem, omniscience becomes a logical omni to give up in order to strengthen the other arguments for the existence of such a God.
Links:
Omniscience is his flaw!
To be Omniscient is to possess complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, and understanding; perceiving all things. God, with the capital G, is often stated as being omniscient. However there are a few problems that arise with omniscience. First off is freewill, second is the problem of evil.
Freewill is the ability to choose between one action and an opposing action. Society accepts that all of us have freewill. The criminal justice system is based off the belief that humans have freewill: if they had no power to choose there actions, punishing them for their actions would be immoral. However many people in society also believe in Fate and God's omniscience.
If God is omniscient, then there is no freewill. If God can see what action you are going to make, then you do not possess the ability to make a choice other then that action. If you could make such a choice, then God would have been wrong, and thus not omniscient. Some say that God knows all possible futures, and it is up to humans to choose which future they want by the choices they make. However this still implies a lack of knowledge on God's part, since he does not know what choice humans will make. Therefore God is not omniscient. In order to maintain God's omniscience, one must give up human's freewill (Equivalent Exchange for those of my readers who watch / read FMA).
Evil is a problem for the existence of an "Omni" God (A God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent). The problem of evil can be solved by conceding that God does not possess one or more of these omnis. If there is unnecessary evil in the world, a moral being would remove it if they possessed the power to remove it, the knowledge of the evil, and the love for those who it is hurting. If this being had the power to remove it, and the love of those who are hurt by it, but not the knowledge of the evil, then it is perfectly reasonable for unnecessary evil to exist. By concedding to the failure of God to possess one of those attributes the problem of evil starts to fade away.
When you combine the problem of Evil with the Freewill problem, omniscience becomes a logical omni to give up in order to strengthen the other arguments for the existence of such a God.
Links:
Omniscience is his flaw!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)