Post by fatpaul on Mar 13, 2017 16:56:54 GMT
There is NO condition to omnipotence that requires doing anything with it.
I would say it's a contradiction to suggest that an omnipotent person is required to do anything and thus is illogical to suggest as a condition.
So okay, either your God knows hes got the juice but doesn't exercise it so he's a lazy deity. Or he doesn't know he's got the juice therefore, he's a fool who doesn't even know himself. The theological, not the atheistic, definition of omnipotence is that God is able to do all that is logically possible. This is an updated version of: God is able to do all. The updated version is alethic logic which answers the question of a too heavy rock for God to lift. These definitions were not made by atheists, they were made by theists and if so then why even mention anything about ability if not to use said ability. It sorta like bragging about it, don't you think?(God's got the juice but no show or tell!)
There's nothing about God's interactions with us that is mysterious so I would never have reason to say that.
Of course evil exists. Anything that is contradiction to God's wishes would be a sign of both evil existing and that free will is evident.
Of course it's not contradictory because free-will was posited to address the problem of evil, conveniently so (again by theists not atheists). Did God have the option not to give free-will therefore no evil? If God didn't have this option then evil is something that God has no control over himself so he has no real ethical recourse. If God did have this option then he chose evil to be part of his game plan again, he has no real ethical recourse.
This reasoning eliminates choice. It lowers existence to only being a mere expression of the creator which doesn't exist anywhere unless you write comic books. Otherwise, life s more than someone controlling you like a doll.
We have the power to change any number of things and we choose not to do it and yet God is required to? That makes no sense...Except that the writer of this quote is putting a condition that not only doesn't exist but couldn't exist based on other assumptions made.
It's a far more ridiculous premise because a man is dictating what a God should do...& to be clear, no one even knows which god he's talking about since no one actually knows who said it although it had to be well before Christianity.
The conclusion aren't true of course since if God exists and evil exists then naturally there's an immediate conflict which is it's biggest flaw.
If all we are arguing is the structure then maybe it is logical (I'll let philosophers argue that) but then it's not important because it's a perfect Venn Diagram of an incorrect assumption.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
You can see from the argument that it is valid in that the conclusion follows from the premises before any questions are asked whether if all men are really mortal or if Socrates actually existed. We see that they are not too ridiculous or unreasonable. Do you not get what I'm saying in that, regardless of the truth of the Epicurean argument, the argument is still logical in it's validity? You have not shown this to be otherwise. All you have done is been vague about the word, omnipotence, and used the get-out-jail-free-will card with nary an explanation.