View Single Post
Old 11-28-2010, 05:37 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Originally Posted by Hassan_Descartes_AbdAllah View Post
Well I disagree with the premise that someone who wants evil to exists must be evil to a certain degree. I gave reasons for God to allow evil on earth, punishment and test(among other reasons perhaps, God knows best). Now a Just Judge would want punishment to be carried out on a criminal. This is a fair implementation of Justice. Would this judge be called evil? I dun think so. Similarly, the evil that results from a test, this is coming from the mindset of a concerned father who would wants to test his children whether they are truly virtuous or not. While the results are evil, the motives are not. Evil has been willed for noble reasons. In other words, God intends evil for noble purposes. Had God allowed evil for evil's sake, then your argument would have held true. But that is simply not the case.
The judge would be evil if there was an easy and benevolent way to deal with the problem. Say if there is a 100% reliable way to reform criminals into honest, benevolent citizens that involves no punishment of any kind and no one has any moral objections to it, and the judge in question sends them to the electric chair anyways, then he is evil.

You seem to be suggesting again and again, that "things" can be divided into two sections, possible and impossible. I completely disagree with this. I hold that "things" which are contradictory to rationalism are not "things" to begin with. They are merely empty words. Although we might say things like "married bachelor" or "dry water", fact is these are not things. These are words, meaningless words. Something which isnt a "thing" to begin with would not come under the banner of omnipotence or even potence. The main difference between our stance is: I say X is Un-doable, meaning you cant "do" X at all (consider this example: Can you "do" bread? no you cannot, thats a noun, nouns are un-doable. Similarly things against rationalism are un-doable the same way, the verb "do" can only be attached before them if we are concerned about grammar and syntac and not meaning). Therefore potence, i.e. ability to do stuff, would have nothing to do with it. On the other hand, you are claiming the un-doables are, well, do-able. This is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. These would not come under the banner of omnipotence.
No, they are concepts, merely self-contradictory concepts. They cannot exist in the universe as we know it. However, omnipotence by definition can do ANYTHING, even things that are impossible and self-contradictory. Omnipotence is the power to answer any question that begins with "Can you..." with "yes", regardless of what the question ends in. Anything else is not omnipotence. By definition, everything, meaning quite literally EVERYTHING, every concept possible impossible paradoxical or not, falls under the banner of omnipotence. Again, this is a simple matter of definition, not something to be argued. Omnipotence is literally unlimited power, and thus you cannot put any sort of limit on it. If you can think of it, then an omnipotent being can do it. Thus if you ask an omnipotent being for a married bachelor, then he will create one. If he cannot, then he is not omnipotent because, once again, by definition, there are no things that an omnipotent being cannot do.

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 11-28-2010 at 07:19 PM.
Reply With Quote