Which of the three attributes of Abrahamic God is less likely to be real?

[Lucian Hodoboc]

John 9:1-3
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Why did the works of God have to be manifest in that man (or any other disabled people)? Whatever the reason might be, if God is omnipotent, then that same reason could be achieved in a way that did not involve suffering.

Some apologists give examples like this: you can't have healing if there's no injury. Well, why is experiencing healing a desirable thing then? Healing is only a desirable thing because it brings the being back to its original state (which, in this case, is health), but if the being's original state would have never been altered, then there would be no need for healing. Healing is not intrinsically good. If a surgeon wanted to cut your healthy body and suture it back just for the purpose of experiencing healing, it would be irrational to say that healing is a desirable thing in that situation.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Honestly, this poll looks like yet another variation on the theme that essentially claims little more than "God doesn't do what I think God should do, therefore God isn't who people say he is."

This is about following logic, not my personal opinion. I don't understand why you keep misunderstanding this.

It's not about what I think God should do, but rather about what the basic rules of logic dictate. Unless, of course, you claim that God's morality allows Him to defy logic, case in which there is no rational way to have a relationship with Him.

 

[Albion]

No, I would not have to find the reason.

Well, I understand that your mind was already made up when you raised the issue. But it still is the case that IF God has a reason for doing what he's doing, it's illogical to posit that the existence of evil in the world somehow disproves the Biblical view of the nature of God.

Whatever the reason might be, no matter how glorious it may be, if God is omnipotent, then He could achieve that same reason without the suffering

He could do that. But this isn't the issue. You claim that because he doesn't do what YOU consider to be righteous, it means that he must not be God as our religion understands God.

, and if He was omnibenevolent, it would be logically impossible for Him to choose the path with the suffering.

Again, no.

Rather, it's that you do not know (or want to know?) what God's reason for allowing evil to exist happens to be. Taking that approach seems much more "illogical" than believing that He does have all the attributes that we're discussing.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

If you want to play semantics then God can't possibly be all-powerful, period.

If God can create an object so large he can't move it then he's not all-powerful because he can't move the object. If God can't create such an object then he's not all-powerful because he can't create it. Neener neener. You might as well argue that God can't create a square circle or some other thing that doesn't fit into what we want things to be.

That is not a good objection to God being all-powerful because the request is irrational. To say that there is an all-powerful God is to say that there cannot coherently be an object so large that He can't move. In an universe in which there is an unstoppable force, there, by definition, cannot be any unmovable object, and vice versa.

For the same reason, to say that the universe contains evil is, by logical necessity, to say that such a universe contains no Being that is both all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing. In order for God's logical goals to be impossible to achieve without allowing suffering, God, Who is all-powerful, would have to lack the power to achieve said logical goal without allowing that suffering. That's where the contradiction lies.

You can take all the things you might like God to do and as soon as you add free will into the equation everything gets muddy. If I have free will that means I can hit you with a big stick, which will cause you suffering. What do you propose God do about this situation? God could take away my free will, which would mean that any concept of loving God would be meaningless because there was no option to not love God. Maybe God could take away big sticks, or make sticks soft and bendy, but then I'll just find something else to hit you with. So perhaps God could overrule any sense of free will but chooses not to because the primary purpose is for us to freely love him (where the option to not love him, or to hate him, or to curse him, or whatever else are just as freely available). If the only way for God to be "good" to you (as you are apparently defining it) is to not be "good" to me, then we're back to square circles and immovable objects and all the rest of it.

Free will is not desirable in a system in which it can cause harm and suffering. If love cannot be had without free will, then love is not desirable to have. If God considers than a world in which His creation can experience love, but His creation suffers and some of it will suffer for eternity, is preferable to a world in which His creation doesn't experience love and free will, but no one suffers, then God is not all-good, because He prioritizes His preference and disregards the suffering of His creation.

And, to give you an example, limiting one's ability to harm others does not have to limit their ability to love. We limit people's abilities to harm others all the time. It's called prison. Prisoners can still experience and show love towards others. Even those in solitary confinement can send letters to their loved ones at home.

How about a world in which whenever a person tries to harm another person, the aggressor instantly and painlessly disappears from existence? Or painlessly faints or falls asleep for a while? Like a buffer system that makes harming others impossible. Like a spiritual leash. How about making people able to have their needs met so that they don't desire what others have? Social sciences show us that the most peaceful countries are those in which the needs of most people are met. How about making people able to see the spiritual creatures that roam around and tempt us?

No one complains that we can't shoot lasers from our eyes so that we could kill others with our laser vision. No one complains that we can't fly like the angels so that we can attack others from above, or swim so that we can fight in the waters. There are ways to limit people's abilities to harm one another, yet still allow them to experience and show love.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Well, I understand that your mind was already made up when you raised the issue. But it still is the case that IF God has a reason for doing what he's doing, it's illogical to posit that the existence of evil in the world somehow disproves the Biblical view of the nature of God.


He could do that. But this isn't the issue. You claim that because he doesn't do what YOU consider to be righteous, it means that he must not be God as our religion understands God.

Again, no.

Rather, it's that you do not know (or want to know?) what God's reason for allowing evil to exist happens to be. Taking that approach seems much more "illogical" than believing that He does have all the attributes that we're discussing.

Any reason that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God might have would be achieved without the suffering. Yes, I cannot imagine said reason, and I don't need to imagine it. If said reason exists, no matter what it might be, said goal is achievable, if God is all-powerful, with or without the suffering. Seeing how omnibenevolence dictates that the well-being of all should be sought at all time, then it would be logically impossible for an omnibenevolent God to choose the path of suffering for achieving a goal that could be achieved without the suffering.

If His morality defies the laws of logic/reason, then we cannot understand said morality and, consequently, obey it.

 

[tango]

This is about following logic, not my personal opinion. I don't understand why you keep misunderstanding this.

It's not about what I think God should do, but rather about what the basic rules of logic dictate. Unless, of course, you claim that God's morality allows Him to defy logic, case in which there is no rational way to have a relationship with Him.

It's not about misunderstanding, it's about what seems like yet another post that boils down to "I don't see any greater good in this apparently bad thing, therefore no greater good can possibly exist, therefore a being that allows this apparently bad thing cannot be good".

I thought much the same thing about my parents making me eat broccoli when I was a child, if it's any consolation.

 

[tango]

That is not a good objection to God being all-powerful because the request is irrational. To say that there is an all-powerful God is to say that there cannot coherently be an object so large that He can't move. In an universe in which there is an unstoppable force, there, by definition, cannot be any unmovable object, and vice versa.

Which, therefore, means that God cannot be all-powerful because he cannot create such an object. It's absurd logic, but no more absurd than some of the other ideas being thrown around.

For the same reason, to say that the universe contains evil is, by logical necessity, to say that such a universe contains no Being that is both all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing. In order for God's logical goals to be impossible to achieve without allowing suffering, God, Who is all-powerful, would have to lack the power to achieve said logical goal without allowing that suffering. That's where the contradiction lies.

So you're saying that God cannot be good if evil exists?

Free will is not desirable in a system in which it can cause harm and suffering. If love cannot be had without free will, then love is not desirable to have. If God considers than a world in which His creation can experience love, but His creation suffers and some of it will suffer for eternity, is preferable to a world in which His creation doesn't experience love and free will, but no one suffers, then God is not all-good, because He prioritizes His preference and disregards the suffering of His creation.

So because you don't think free will is desirable it is therefore automatically and unconditionally undesirable? God apparently thinks differently.

And, to give you an example, limiting one's ability to harm others does not have to limit their ability to love. We limit people's abilities to harm others all the time. It's called prison. Prisoners can still experience and show love towards others. Even those in solitary confinement can send letters to their loved ones at home.

How much do you think prison prevents people from harming others? You might not be able to harm the people outside the prison walls but there are still fights in prisons. You've probably heard that sex offenders don't have a particularly easy ride inside those walls. The problem is man is corrupted - it's the desire to harm others that causes the problem rather than what tools happen to be available. If you're so inclined all sorts of things can be used as a weapon.

How about a world in which whenever a person tries to harm another person, the aggressor instantly and painlessly disappears from existence? Or painlessly faints or falls asleep for a while? Like a buffer system that makes harming others impossible. Like a spiritual leash. How about making people able to have their needs met so that they don't desire what others have? Social sciences show us that the most peaceful countries are those in which the needs of most people are met. How about making people able to see the spiritual creatures that roam around and tempt us?

Sounds awesome. When you get promoted to God go ahead and implement it. You'd have a few problems with it though. What if you misread a situation and see that the only way to protect one person is to harm another? So you plan to harm someone to protect many others, only to find you misread the situation and simply disappear. Too bad for the people who were depending on you to provide for them. Oops.

How about people having their needs met? Sure, all sorts of countries have tried it. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. People want more, and not everybody cares about their fellow man.

Here's another idea. How about more people living like Jesus taught us? His ways sound like a pretty neat society. You'd almost be forgiven for thinking he knew what he was talking about.

No one complains that we can't shoot lasers from our eyes so that we could kill others with our laser vision. No one complains that we can't fly like the angels so that we can attack others from above, or swim so that we can fight in the waters. There are ways to limit people's abilities to harm one another, yet still allow them to experience and show love.

There are all sorts of things that could be done but it all boils down to free will. Apparently you disagree with God on how he should be doing things.

 

[Albion]

Any reason that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God might have would be achieved without the suffering.

"If I were God, I'd do it a different way" is all that you're saying here. It doesn't make God be illogical or not benevolent, etc.

Yes, I cannot imagine said reason, and I don't need to imagine it.

As I was saying before, all you've done is tell us that you'd prefer another kind of deity--one who reflects the qualities that you (one of God's creations) has constructed in your own mind in accordance with your own value system that itself has been shaped by the era in which we live, the society in which we grew up, and so on.

That ^ probably comes across as being a bit strong of me to say, but all sorts of people contemplate the mysteries of existence, using the imperfect processes of the mortal mind, and then insist that if there is a God he ought to be exactly as the one that they defined.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

"If I were God, I'd do it a different way" is all that you're saying here.

I'm sorry, but that's all you're understanding. That's not all I'm saying at all. It is irrelevant whether I agree with the way God does things. I'm merely pointing out that a God Who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is illogical considering that there is suffering in the world. It simply defies the laws of logic.

Let me present this as a simple logical argument:

Premise 1: God is omnipotent (all-powerful).
Premise 2: God is omniscient (all-knowing).
Premise 3: God is omnibenevolent (all-good).
Premise 4: If any goal could be achieved with or without suffering (premise 1 supports this), then an omniscient God would known how to achieve it without suffering (premise 2 supports this) and and omnibenevolent God would choose the option that doesn't require suffering (premise 3 supports this).
Premise 5: Suffering exists in the world.
Premise 6: If suffering exists in the world, then there is a goal that God could achieve without suffering but is instead choosing to achieve through suffering.
Conclusion: Therefore, God either does not exist or is not omnibenevolent.

I really don't know how to make it more clearer than this.

I realized that, within the realm of logic, God is impossible to exist with the tri-/tetra-omni attributes mentioned in this thread. What I'm asking is which of the 4 attributes is more likely to not be real. I'm inclined to hope that it is omnipotence. He is probably powerful, but not all-powerful.

 

[tango]

If His morality defies the laws of logic/reason, then we cannot understand said morality and, consequently, obey it.

A friend of mine works in his chosen trade. When he was training his supervisor would frequently tell him something along the lines of "this is how you do this job, for now you need to trust me and I'll explain it all later". Which was fine - he was the supervisor and my friend was the trainee. Right now my friend didn't need to know every single reason behind how things are done. Later on his supervisor could explain to him the reasoning behind the way things were done - maybe that the most effective way of doing it, maybe it was a requirement of building codes, maybe there was some other reason.

The crucial thing here is that my friend didn't need to understand the reasoning. He was told to do it a certain way, so he did it that certain way. And had he not wanted to learn more he could have stayed on at a trainee level, always doing it the same way and never even asking why. The fact he wanted to know why it needed to be done that way didn't create any obligation for his supervisor to explain it - his supervisor would have been within his rights to say that his job was to do as he was told and that was that.

If you look at much of the Law in the Old Testament there's not a whole lot of reasoning behind it. The law is pretty simple - you do this because I told you to do this. Even if you take the condensed version from Jesus - love God and love each other - there's no reasoning behind why we should do that.

 

[tango]

I'm sorry, but that's all you're understanding. That's not all I'm saying at all. It is irrelevant whether I agree with the way God does things. I'm merely pointing out that a God Who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is illogical considering that there is suffering in the world. It simply defies the laws of logic.

Let me present this as a simple logical argument:

Premise 1: God is omnipotent (all-powerful).
Premise 2: God is omniscient (all-knowing).
Premise 3: God is omnibenevolent (all-good).
Premise 4: If any goal could be achieved with or without suffering (premise 1 supports this), then an omniscient God would known how to achieve it without suffering (premise 2 supports this) and and omnibenevolent God would choose the option that doesn't require suffering (premise 3 supports this).
Premise 5: Suffering exists in the world.
Premise 6: If suffering exists in the world, then there is a goal that God could achieve without suffering but is instead choosing to achieve through suffering.
Conclusion: Therefore, God either does not exist or is not omnibenevolent.

I really don't know how to make it more clearer than this.

I realized that, within the realm of logic, God is impossible to exist with the tri-/tetra-omni attributes mentioned in this thread. What I'm asking is which of the 4 attributes is more likely to not be real. I'm inclined to hope that it is omnipotence. He is probably powerful, but not all-powerful.

What you're saying, yet again, is that God defies your understanding of logic. You don't see a greater good in suffering, therefore no greater good exists, therefore God is not omnibenevolent, neener neener.

Perhaps another possible conclusion is that there's a bigger picture you and I can't see from here. You know, that whole "now we see as through a glass darkly" thing that Paul wrote about.

If I have free will and choose to hit you with a big stick, your options are either to argue that free will is bad or that I should somehow be denied the freedom to hit you with a big stick. Your earlier talk of spiritual leashes sound very admirable but ultimately they are nothing more than a means of taking away free will. Maybe I can hit you with a small stick but not a big stick. Maybe I can throw rocks at your car but not at your house. Maybe I can punch you but not too hard. Maybe if I so much as think about being nasty to you in any way I simply disappear painlessly, as if I exist in a vacuum and my disappearance won't harm anybody else. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Yes, perhaps God could override everybody's free will such that our actions have no consequences, or that we get no choice and we get to enjoy some kind of utopia. I'd really like it if I could stuff my face with cake and ice cream all day and not have to worry about inconvenient issues like weight gain, diabetes and cardiac arrest.

When I was a child and my parents made me eat vegetables I couldn't see any reason to eat them. I hated them, so why would my parents make me eat something I hated eating so much? Clearly they didn't love me or they wouldn't make me eat those disgusting things. Or maybe there was something else going on that my child's mind couldn't understand.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

A friend of mine works in his chosen trade. When he was training his supervisor would frequently tell him something along the lines of "this is how you do this job, for now you need to trust me and I'll explain it all later". Which was fine - he was the supervisor and my friend was the trainee. Right now my friend didn't need to know every single reason behind how things are done. Later on his supervisor could explain to him the reasoning behind the way things were done - maybe that the most effective way of doing it, maybe it was a requirement of building codes, maybe there was some other reason.

The crucial thing here is that my friend didn't need to understand the reasoning. He was told to do it a certain way, so he did it that certain way. And had he not wanted to learn more he could have stayed on at a trainee level, always doing it the same way and never even asking why. The fact he wanted to know why it needed to be done that way didn't create any obligation for his supervisor to explain it - his supervisor would have been within his rights to say that his job was to do as he was told and that was that.

If you look at much of the Law in the Old Testament there's not a whole lot of reasoning behind it. The law is pretty simple - you do this because I told you to do this. Even if you take the condensed version from Jesus - love God and love each other - there's no reasoning behind why we should do that.

Your example is not very relevant because:
- your friend's manager was not omnipotent, so he had to obey whatever existing laws that were beyond his powers to change;
- your friend was allowed to quit his job and seek a new one in any other field, or even to start his own company.

The fact that God didn't explain the logistics of the laws in the Old Testament (or maybe He did but it wasn't recorded clearly by the writers) doesn't affect my argument. I'm not trying to make an argument about God's communication skills, but about the fact that it is impossible for the 3 or 4 omni-attributes to coexist if suffering exists in the world.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

What you're saying, yet again, is that God defies your understanding of logic. You don't see a greater good in suffering, therefore no greater good exists, therefore God is not omnibenevolent, neener neener.

That is simply incorrect. It's not my understanding of logic. It's textbook logic. Ask any professor of logic and philosophy.

Again, I do accept the idea of a greater good, even of a incredibly great good. Even if said greater good is great enough to deserve the most horrible suffering, omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence would make the achievement of said greater good possible without the suffering. But suffering exists, therefore God cannot have all said attributes simulataneously.

Perhaps another possible conclusion is that there's a bigger picture you and I can't see from here. You know, that whole "now we see as through a glass darkly" thing that Paul wrote about.

Whatever picture that might be, it could have been painted without the suffering because that is what omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence allow for.

When I was a child and my parents made me eat vegetables I couldn't see any reason to eat them. I hated them, so why would my parents make me eat something I hated eating so much? Clearly they didn't love me or they wouldn't make me eat those disgusting things. Or maybe there was something else going on that my child's mind couldn't understand.

Any sort of example that includes beings that don't have the tri-omni attributes will prove itself irrelevant because it will not address the ability to achieve said goal in a way that doesn't involve suffering. When you are omnipotent, you can achieve any logical goal, otherwise you are not omnipotent. If you admit that God does not have one of the 3 attributes, then the entire issue resolves itself.

If He is not omnipotent, He doesn't stop suffering because He cannot do so at the moment, but He will be able to do so at one point in time.

If He is not omnibenevolent, He doesn't stop the suffering because He doesn't want the well-being of all creatures at all time, but He wants the well-being of most creatures at most time.

If He is not omniscient, He doesn't stop the suffering because He doesn't know how to do it at this moment, but He will know at some point in time.

 

[Josiah]

I voted in the poll.. by not selecting any of the options...


Christianity affirms these attributes of God because God Himself has revealed them in His Scripture to us (and He outta know) and because Christianity has believed and affirmed these historically and consistently from the beginning. We do NOT affirm them because some incredibly egotistical dude proclaimed that they "make sense" to their puny, fallen brain and their own epistemology and thus must be true.


IMO, part (just part) of the "problem" of agnostics and atheists is their steadfast, unaccountable, unexamined presumption that reality and truth are relativistic (THEY determine it, and if THEY do, it's true/right for THEM) and that ALL is subject to THEIR concepts of reality and epistemology. It's an extremely self-focused, self-driven, self-centered way of looking at things. "It doesn't make sense to ME (and I'M the truth determiner for all humanity) according to what fits what I regard as "logic" in my (infallible) opinion." Of course, this approach is popular... especially in our absurdly relativistic and egotistical culture.


It humors me (as one with a Ph.D. in Physics) that people who do this like to appeal to science. Makes me chuckle just a bit. Physics is FILLED with affirmations that the proponents FREELY ADMIT are not supported by the "facts" or by "logic" or by the laws of physics... quite open to admit that "physics breaks down here" or "the rules simply don't apply here." YET they form whole teachings from that. Scientists (who often are NOT atheists) seem far MORE willing that truth/reality may NOT fit with "logic" and "science" than non-scientists, it seems to me. It just may be that reality is bigger than self, bigger than our very puny brains. Even all of us put together?



.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

IMO, part (just part) of the "problem" of agnostics and atheists is their steadfast, unaccountable, unexamined presumption that reality and truth are relativistic (THEY determine it, and if THEY do, it's true/right for THEM) and that ALL is subject to THEIR concepts of reality and epistemology. It's an extremely self-focused, self-driven, self-centered way of looking at things. "It doesn't make sense to ME (and I'M the truth determiner for all humanity) according to what fits what I regard as "logic" in my (infallible) opinion." Of course, this approach is popular... especially in our absurdly relativistic and egotistical culture.

Those are the tools that God has given us. If we can't use logic to understand God, then we might as well not try to understand Him at all, which goes against what Jesus invited us to do: seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be answered to you; and against what God told the Israelites: "come and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18).

It's not about being infallible. It's about having a common means of communication with God. If He operates outside of the laws of logic and that realm is incomprehensible to us, then any type of judgement would be a simple spectacle with no significance. It would be like a human court judging a mentally-challenged individual for actions he did not understand.

I don't know why you're implying that God operates outside of the laws of logic, considering that there are numerous passages in the Bible which indicate that God can be understood. Jesus opened the minds of the apostles so they could understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:25). God gave Solomon wisdom to see all His work (Ecclesiastes 8:17). Repeatedly God tried to reason with the nation of Israel, when they were sinning in the Old Testament. Taste and see that The Lord is good (Psalm 34:8)

It humors me (as one with a Ph.D. in Physics) that people who do this like to appeal to science. Makes me chuckle just a bit. Physics is FILLED with affirmations that the proponents FREELY ADMIT are not supported by the "facts" or by "logic" or by the laws of physics... quite open to admit that "physics breaks down here" or "the rules simply don't apply here." YET they form whole teachings from that. Scientists (who often are NOT atheists) seem far MORE willing that truth/reality may NOT fit with "logic" and "science" than non-scientists, it seems to me. It just may be that reality is bigger than self, bigger than our very puny brains. Even all of us put together?

When we don't understand something in science, we acknowledge that we don't understand it, and we keep on seeking until we understand or indefinitely. That seems to be the opposite of what Christianity requires us to do. We are required to accept as doctrine the teachings of the Bible and never seek anymore despite the very Bible telling us to seek and test.

Moreover, the teachings of science don't threaten us with eternal damnation for asking questions and questioning past findings.

 

[Josiah]

@Lucian Hodoboc

God has revealed much - about Himself (such as His attributes) and many other things.

You have two options:

1. You can accept that God has told us about Himself is the truth. We can seek to understand why this is true, real, correct.
2. You can accept that God has not told us the truth. And we can use what we do accept as truth to correct, deny and replace it.

Christians traditionally have done the first. The "seek" and "understand" and "reason" that the Bible speaks is for us to better understand what God states is true, real, correct... to understand the issue as God states it. It's not the subjecting God to our lordship, our personal sense of what's true, real, correct... not forcing God to submit to OUR current senses of logic and reason, OUR accepted epistemology. It's not insisting that we are God and god is subject to our brains, our epistemologies, our assumptions.

St. Augustine theorized that the "heart" of the Fall of Adam and Eve was their desire to be god... to subject God to THEIR wishes, wisdom, reason. Perhaps the first step in the "understanding" of which you speak is to understand who is God and who is not; which is subject to which. And a bit of humility, accepting that it's possible God simply knows more than we do, and even that our very puny, limited, fallen brains may not always be able to wrap around what is true. The Bible does not call on us to correct God, it calls on us to be "stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." And, yes, there are mysteries and that includes that sometimes God isn't limited to OUR physics, realities, thinking. Not if we let God be God. And not subject him to the one we think is the real one, the one we see in the mirror.



.

 

[tango]

That is simply incorrect. It's not my understanding of logic. It's textbook logic. Ask any professor of logic and philosophy.

Sure it is, but it comes with its own assumptions and biases which you continually fail to acknowledge. If you start from a faulty assumption any conclusion you draw will be faulty.

Again, I do accept the idea of a greater good, even of a incredibly great good. Even if said greater good is great enough to deserve the most horrible suffering, omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence would make the achievement of said greater good possible without the suffering. But suffering exists, therefore God cannot have all said attributes simulataneously.

Which still assumes that the suffering serves no purpose. It assumes you know better than God what purpose suffering might serve. You're clearly coming at everything based on the assumption it serves no purpose at all and therefore must be bad. Take away that assumption and your circle collapses on itself.

Whatever picture that might be, it could have been painted without the suffering because that is what omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence allow for.

If suffering served no purpose, perhaps. If suffering served a purpose then perhaps not.

If you want to endlessly speculate why God didn't create a world where everything is just as we want it to be, where we can eat whatever we want without getting fat, where people can have free will without ever using that will to harm anyone else - in other words if you want to demand explanations for why God didn't do it your way, take a read of the last five chapters of Job.

Any sort of example that includes beings that don't have the tri-omni attributes will prove itself irrelevant because it will not address the ability to achieve said goal in a way that doesn't involve suffering. When you are omnipotent, you can achieve any logical goal, otherwise you are not omnipotent. If you admit that God does not have one of the 3 attributes, then the entire issue resolves itself.

If He is not omnipotent, He doesn't stop suffering because He cannot do so at the moment, but He will be able to do so at one point in time.

If He is not omnibenevolent, He doesn't stop the suffering because He doesn't want the well-being of all creatures at all time, but He wants the well-being of most creatures at most time.

If He is not omniscient, He doesn't stop the suffering because He doesn't know how to do it at this moment, but He will know at some point in time.

... unless suffering is a way to greater well-being later. I know, I know, that silly God should have made it differently so we could have all the rewards with none of the work. While he's at it maybe we could all have ripped physiques without having to lift weights and healthy hearts even if we spend all our days stuffing our faces with chemical garbage. Hey, think how much extra time we'd have for fun if we didn't need to think about exercise.... we could have hedonism on earth forever with no consequences.

Oh, but wait, then he'd have to get rid of all sorts of other things - you know, can't have any suffering if someone's spouse decides to leave them, or grieving when a loved one dies, or pain if we don't pay attention and cut ourselves with a sharp tool. Think how much easier life would be if someone could just decide to throw their kids out in the cold because they were bored of being parents, knowing the kids would be just fine because there was no suffering. I can only imagine the chaos as people expressed their own selfish desires with nothing to restrain them. Maybe silly god should just have done away with free will and made a load of automatons who never really loved anything because they had no option to do anything else.

Just think how much easier it would be if a silly god hadn't said "this is how I want you to live, these are the consequences of choosing for me and these are the consequences of choosing against me" because it would be so much better if he could only have said "this is what I'd prefer but, you know, you do whatever you want with no consequences because, well, let's all sing kumbaya together because all that matters is that everybody is happy."

When you get promoted to God maybe you can show us how it should be done.

 

[tango]

Those are the tools that God has given us. If we can't use logic to understand God, then we might as well not try to understand Him at all, which goes against what Jesus invited us to do: seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be answered to you; and against what God told the Israelites: "come and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18).

We can reason together without understanding everything. We can seek to understand more while accepting we will not understand everything. It's not unlike reasoning with a child, depending on their age we can explain some things to them to improve their understanding but other times we expect them to accept something. We can tell a child that thunder is a big noise in the sky without necessarily explaining the machinations of the formations of weather patterns and lightning.

It's not about being infallible. It's about having a common means of communication with God. If He operates outside of the laws of logic and that realm is incomprehensible to us, then any type of judgement would be a simple spectacle with no significance. It would be like a human court judging a mentally-challenged individual for actions he did not understand.

You're coming at this from an all-or-none perspective. If you pick any subject matter that you know anything about at all, you'll find that you know, well, something about it. You can study it and understand more about it but you may never understand everything there is to know about it.

God tells us to do certain things and also tells us not to do certain other things. That's it. Love God with all your heart, mind, strength etc. Simple. No explanations necessary. If you're a genius then "all your mind" means a lot. If you're the kind of putz who froze his tongue to the flagpole for the fourth time this week it means a lot less. So your comparison to the mentally challenged individual is inappropriate.

I don't know why you're implying that God operates outside of the laws of logic, considering that there are numerous passages in the Bible which indicate that God can be understood. Jesus opened the minds of the apostles so they could understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:25). God gave Solomon wisdom to see all His work (Ecclesiastes 8:17). Repeatedly God tried to reason with the nation of Israel, when they were sinning in the Old Testament. Taste and see that The Lord is good (Psalm 34:8)

... and there are also passages indicating that we can't know everything now. This isn't a black-or-white situation, it's many shades of gray. You can understand to an extent, you can study and understand more, but you won't understand it all. The tone of your posts suggests that if you can't have it all you don't want any of it.

When we don't understand something in science, we acknowledge that we don't understand it, and we keep on seeking until we understand or indefinitely. That seems to be the opposite of what Christianity requires us to do. We are required to accept as doctrine the teachings of the Bible and never seek anymore despite the very Bible telling us to seek and test.

Moreover, the teachings of science don't threaten us with eternal damnation for asking questions and questioning past findings.

In science we can seek ever-more knowledge but also accept that the more we find the more questions arise and the more we come to realise we don't know. So, for example, the theory of evolution can look at the notion of a creature evolving into a more complex creature but can't explain how the first creature came to be, and so we end up with theories of abiogenesis that look to explain how the first living thing came to be living, but can't explain how the non-living-thing that became a living-thing got there in the first place. And so on. I doubt you'll find very many scientists who simply quit experimenting and studying because they won't find all the answers.

Christianity doesn't threaten eternal damnation for asking questions and seeking answers. Jesus didn't condemn Thomas for doubting the resurrection. I'm not sure where you got the idea that eternal damnation awaits those who do the seeking Jesus encouraged us to do.