If God is all powerful then he cannot be all good

If God is all powerful then he cannot be all good.

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

If God is all powerful then he has the power to be all good even if it creates a paradox

Explain how, Lex. Your dumbass fortune cookie philosophy holds no weight and only sounds profound to neckbeard atheists.

Truly the thinking man's Superhero movie

Being all powerful doesn't entail the ability to create logical impossibilities
Much like how God couldn't create a square with no corners

whats the point of proving superman isn't all-powerful? he never claimed to be. he's just doing his best to help as many people as he can

Oh, so He lacks a bit of power then it seems
Go back to logic school, we're finished here

Fuck off nihilistman

If he's not all powerful then he can't be God
This is because the film explained that several people were worshiping him as such
>mfw I actually studied logic and got a first
You can't lack something which is impossible to attain

This is Superman in the real modern world, boy

I'd settle for very powerful and not fictional. We should start a religion promising to worship the first aliens that show up on our doorstep with a planet destroyer ray looking for some cheap labor. It'll make us look less disingenuous than if we wait until they show up to start it.

>Believing the New Testament meme
If god really exists he's probably much closer to the one depicted in the old testament.

Why exactly would god not be able to be all good if he was also all powerful? Wouldn't only an all powerful god be able to be all good?

>thinking there is a difference

Really activates my almonds

Because if he's all powerful and all good then why would he allow shitty things to happen?

It seems very odd to imagine a potential all-powerful being as that petty and insecure.

Aren't shitty things just inevitable? Like if two men are pining after a woman, only one of them are going to end up with her (ignoring cuck shit)

I received 100% in Formal, Informal, and Symbolic as well as Problems of God and Religion and my dissertation was about this issue, you aren't fooling anyone, GO BACK TO LOGIC SCHOOL

Yes, God could create a square with no corners, if he were omnipotent. That's because what a square would qualify for would change according to his will. He is the rules.

An all powerful being would be that petty and insecure. They would believe that their actions are right since they have the power to determine right and wrong. They would expect obedience from others because what is the point in defying an all powerful being?

Because he is not your nanny. Anyway, there is a afterlife so whatever bad happens to you, it will pass eventually.

Willard Quine walks into a bar. The bartenders are Copi and Cohen. He asks them, "How can God be good if evil exists?"
They nod and pour him a drink.

You cannot be both powerful and insecure.

If one is all powerful one has the power and perhaps the necessity to be insecure, as well as all other states, simultaneously

God is the only definition for existence, everything he does is right and good.

>Yes, God could create a square with no corners, if he were omnipotent. That's because what a square would qualify for would change according to his will. He is the rules
That literally isn't how it works. Consider the question
>can the dog yellow?
There is no logical answer because the question doesn't make sense. The same applies to making a square without corners.
When you get past the language-structures (ie "lol change the definition of square!") then you cannot make an x that is y (where x=/=y), it is a contradiction

This also applies to the age old question
>can God make a rock so big that he couldn't lift it?
There is no answer because the question doesn't make sense

The only concession I would accept in this would be if you were to argue that logic wasn't an objective structure. But I don't know how you would argue that

How does "can God make a rock so big/heavy that he couldn't lift it" make no sense? The answer is supposed to create a paradox.

Cause you can rewrite the question as
>is it possible to create a logical impossibility?

>he thinks omnipotence is bound to the strictures of logic
back to logic school buddy

>I received 100% in Formal, Informal, and Symbolic as well as Problems of God and Religion and my dissertation was about this issue

That's nice. Can I get fries with that burger?

Does omnipotence make sense? Is it logically possible to be omnipotent?

Yes. There is nothing inherently contradictory about omnipotence
Though it does somewhat depend on what you class as omnipotence I suppose (this is actually an entire area of Christology that people dedicate their lives to lol)

Not currently possible, and likely will never be achieved, but theoretically it's possible.

If God is all powerful, then he cannot be all good.
Oh look, No premises. Just a conclusion. Non argument, a statement asserted as fact without backing up. Why Lex. Why?

I don't think we were meant to take Lex's musings at face value to actually consider. He's a villain. He's got a juvenile level understanding of philosophy, but instead of being some idiot behind a computer, he's got the resources to act on it.

Then he is not all powerful, because if he was all powerful, and all good, preventing bad things from happening to you would be beyond trivial to be able to be done without effort at all.

I wish I didn't have to solve captchas to post ITT. Is a Sup Forums pass worth it? Any pass users here?

The film, mistakenly, assumed its audience would be smart enough to know the outline of the problem of evil argument

They're pretty worth it for the hidden posts I suppose
Other than that, they're pretty pointless though

But that is exactly what Snyder meant!
B R A V A
R
A
V
A

...

Yes, but not simultaneously omniscient and all loving or good. Thats why I dont believe in an Omniscient, All powerful god, I believe in a very powerful, very scient and mostly omniscient and sort of on my side but not really all the time, mostly just on the side of humanity in general set of gods. The Asatru religion makes the most sense.
If The Gods are so powerful why is there bad? Because they have better things to do than babysit your weak ass and pressure makes gems.
If The Gods or God is all knowing, why is X: Because they are not all powerful, but very very powerful.
Why do the Gods need sacrifice/devotion/prayer.
They don't really. They just are symbols of friendship and bond with them, trust built up. They help in little quiet ways that arent too big, Give you courage, and calm and if you live right, you get to come to their hall when you die, or you get to rest peacefully with your ancestors depending on how you lived.

Why? What purpose does this serve?
They need us to fight for them. There's a War coming at the end of time.

When is The end coming?
Who fucking knows, here are the signs, it may not come for another ten thousand years.
IS the end really the end?
no, just the end of *this* after *This* there will be another, who knows what that will be there, dont worry about it.

When will I die, do they know is it determined?
Yeah, it is but that can change, and the way you die is up to really. Dont worry about it. When you die, you die. No sense worrying about it so live.
What about Sin?
Pay your debts, be a good person, make amends when you fuck up and keep your word as best you can. Evil is what is harmful to yourself, your family ,your community , your country and/or your species in that order. It's relative, just dont be a dick for no reason.

Mathematically speaking, any evil you suffer on earth is meaningless if you are rewarded with infinite paradise. Take the limit of (x•k)/((y•n) where x is suffering, y is paradise (enjoyment, happiness), k is time onEarth and n is time in Heaven; as n approaches infinity. Nothing matters. Nunnadis matters :(

autism

The original question of whether or not God could create a square with no corners, then, is also nonsensical. And you know that's not what I meant with the 'lol he changes the definition', God changing how we perceive, interpret, and interact with a square object (which is well within the power of an omnipotent to do) is far more different than some shithead changing the definition of a square in Merriam-Webster's.

And the answer to if God could lift a rock he made that cannot be lifted is yes. It is either that both outcomes can fit within the logic of omnipotence or neither can, it has nothing to do with whether logic is objective or not (which in itself is not a logical statement in this argument seeing as God was the creator of logic). Which is mainly why I don't believe in an omnipotent YHWH and I'm a pantheist, but that's beside the point.

>The original question of whether or not God could create a square with no corners, then, is also nonsensical.
Correct
>And the answer to if God could lift a rock he made that cannot be lifted is yes
Incorrect as then God is not omnipotent, hence the paradox
> It is either that both outcomes can fit within the logic of omnipotence or neither can
Incorrect, the question is the problem not the answers

Consider
>What hat is the King of France wearing?
There is no correct answer to this question because the question makes at least 1 (if not two) presupposition errors

>it has nothing to do with whether logic is objective or not
Sure it does. If logic is objective then there are truths which exist because of logical necessity and not because of a conscious willing by God
Not to sound pretentious but I really recommend you read some philosophical theology if you're interested in this.
>(which in itself is not a logical statement in this argument seeing as God was the creator of logic)
God created you or I, yet free will allows us to choose our paths. Thus if I eat an orange, it's not because God wills me to eat an orange but because I choose to do so
Similarly, if logic is objective, 12x12 equals 144 not because God wills it but because it's a logical necessity

Because if he was all powerful, then there would only be evil in the world (ie, Luthor's dad beating his ass) if he allowed it, meaning he's not all good. Maybe, just maybe, you only thought BvS was bad because you're too stupid to follow the plot.

That was actually an excellent post, retard.

>my mum thought my post was good

- Albert Einstein, 2004

Yes, calling anything you don't understand autism and posting images of hot women makes you not a retard. Quit being retarded. Oh wait, you cannot.

yes it does as being all powerful is a logical impossibility in itself.

you cant logically be all powerful. so if you are, you've already defied logic and impossibilities

>posting images of hot women

>you cant logically be all powerful
Please explain the logical contradiction with omnipotence (which will interesting since if you do so you'll literally destroy the entire field of philosophical theology (which is a very large field) - so no pressure)

Don't have to. I'm omnipotent.
Back to logic school, spaz

Jesse Eisenburg should have gotten an Oscar for this role.

fuck the haters

>superman's face when lex luthor is saying edgy incomprehensible shit

And how would you know what good is just because it may affect you in a negative way

omnipotence implies omniscience, omniscience precludes free will. Free will precludes omnipotence.

>omnipotence implies omniscience
no it doesn't
and there's a very large area devoted to whether or not free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive (what counts as omniscience? what counts as free will?)
try again

Whats that? mental gymnastics in theology?

You need to know everything in order to be able to do anything. So omniscience is a component of omnipotence. But if you know everything that can ever happen, then free will isn't possible. If free will isn't possible (flubbed this previously) then omnipotence is also not possible.

But since theology is nothing but etymology with pretense, this is all pointless.

>You need to know everything in order to be able to do anything
No you don't. What on earth even slightly makes you think this?

You can't do what you don't know how to do. If you don't know how to do some stuff, then you can not do anything.

Like I said, theology is nothing but word games, trying to argue god into existence with the definitions of human words.

sounds like something a Moloch worshiper would say

I can set fire to a match without understanding thermodynamics
I can drive a car without understanding gear boxes or engines
I don't know what even slightly makes you think that omnipotence requires omniscience but if you could prove it I'd be open to hearing why

But so far your argument has been quite weak

You are given the ability to do absolutely anything you can imagine, just by imagining it. Any underlying physical requirements of what you imagine will be sorted out by friggin magic, so no stupid situations like "I IMAGINE A SUN MADE OF LIONS" collapsing into a singularity or something due to physical law.

Now.

Can you do something you can't imagine? If not, how can you claim this is omnipotence?

now now... play nice
you're right tho

Because, as was earlier mentioned, free will necessitates that there will be some information you cannot know
Now say I had the ability to multiply any numbers in my head
And then someone asked me to square Obama's social security number
I would say I couldn't because I didn't what it was

This would not mean that I didn't have the ability to multiply any numbers, as if I knew the numbers I would be able to

That you equate it to magic is probably the mistake you're making. It's not magic. It's God having complete control over creation

So for your "Can you do something you can't imagine?", no. Because you didn't say you have omnipotence, you said you had the ability to do anything you could imagine. So the answer is literally embodied in the premise. That's not omnipotence.

A better question would be "what counts as omnipotence?"
This too is hotly debated in philosophical theology (especially when it comes to Christology and they're trying to understand how Jesus can be both human and divine but that's a whole other issue)

Do you have a basic grasp of the concept of infinity? The eternities of non-existence on either end of your life? You kinda need these to have any conception of omnipotence/omniscience. Can do some stuff isn't omnipotence. Can do a lot of stuff isn't omnipotence. The same way a number with less than infinite zeros is still infinitely less than infinity. Infinity divided by any number is still infinity. Infinity divided by infinity is still infinity.

Not knowing some specific string of numbers doesn't mean you can't multiply all numbers. But being limited in any way, shape, or form, precludes omnipotence. Because no matter how much you can do, if there is anything you can't, then you aren't omnipotent.

I know you want to sound smart because you clearly have never studied any of this, but what you just said is nonsense.
Here's some light-reading, use the footnotes if you actually want to learn about this
plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/

>mfw cant be all good

I'm sorry, that probably sounded mean.
What I'm saying is that you have an arbitrary dictionary-definition of these terms that you've rationalised and thought about in your own head. But when these terms are used in a philosophical sense, scholars use the bible as a reference to understand what they mean. Whether or not God's properties 'count' as omnipotence/omniscience is again another entire area

But seriously, read up on it if you're curious

To sum up this thread for those who still don't understand the OP

>omnipotence: complete/maximal power
>omniscience: complete/maximal knowledge

Wow, its like nothing I've said is contradicted or anything. Sorry for going off script, I guess. How dare me.

Since you're getting snarky, allow me to just atomize the elephant in the room.

Theological debate, between theologians, is ultimately pointless because it will be predicated upon the idea that God does exist and is everything that is attributed to Him is fundamentally true. Any conclusion that even suggests the non-existence of god or brushes against Epicurus must be reevaluated and words must be redefined until its resettled that God is real, is omniscient, omnipotence is possible, and free will exists, otherwise the theologian is worshiping an entity that isn't all that great, doesn't know a whole lot, or is knowingly creating people hes knowingly dooming to lives of misery and suffering and/or eternities of punishment.

All three of these concepts (omnipotence, omniscience, free will) are fundamentally contradictory and no amount of word play can change this.

>completely ignores the articles
>completely ignores that these terms mean things beyond arbitrary dictionary definitions
>tries saying a philosophical debate that he's engaged in is pointless
Wow... that's like rage-quitting an argument...

>can't read

...

This thread is hilarious

It's not even about any of that to Lex. It's literally all a smokescreen. The entire film, Superman is fixating on the people who are reacting to him like he's a god. It scares him, that some people are going a little nuts with the knowledge that a superhuman alien lives among them.

The entire film, we see Lex browbeating people with whatever he thinks they're afraid of - other "gods" among us, a rogue Superman, etc. he's doing precisely that same thing when he's face to face with Clark - selling him back his own fear packaged as a dangerous lunatic with a grudge against "god" holding his mother hostage.

The best part is he doesn't even think of Clark as a god, nor does Bruce, and yet they're the only two people who voice what so many others are coming to believe.

than

How can you have free will if you can't do evil?

Prevent evil existing as a concept

Oh look, its the "LEX WAS PRETENDING TO BE AN EDGY TEENAGER WHO JUST ENCOUNTERED NIETZSCHE CLIFFNOTES FOR THE FIRST TIME!!" argument.

Because despite the fact that Superman would like himself to be seen as just another guy trying to save lives, the public has deified him and shaped him into something bigger and more powerful than he really is. Luthor's plan is to either a) prove to Superman that he can't be a good person with his power or b) prove to the world that he isn't omnipotent. Either way, Luthor proves to himself that a being greater than himself, i.e. a rich and powerful human being, can exist.

Evil is a subjective concept.

The problem with that argument is, ya know, superman. How the public sees him is irrelevant to whatever agency he finally decides to have. The main problem with MoS and BvS is superman, still, after two movies, still has no agency what so ever. He just reacts, rather mindlessly, to plot elements.

I agree. Eisenberg fucking killed.

its more like he found half of a philosophy 101 final cheat sheet.

If God exists, then it isn't

You don't get an oscar for playing the same role twice.

If god exists, from whenst cometh evil?

>I figured out way back

jesus christ, really? did snyder create an universe where epicurus did not exist and nobody has this thought until luthor?

No it isn't

Is BVS more intellectual than rick and morty?

>Dissertation in philosophy
>Shitposts in superhero threads on the tv board of a basketweaving forum

Sounds about right.

literally me

>tfw you aren't getting (you)s from your post

feels bad.

now define evil without any other concept. I'll wait.

Does Lex think Superman is God, or at least *a* god?

Good question.
There are several different answers but I don't see how this helps solve the problem of evil?

gotta do something with that degree

>still has no agency what so ever. He just reacts, rather mindlessly, to plot elements.
That is complete bullshit if you actually pay attention to these films. Back up with evidence or GTFO

If God exists, then evil is an action that occurs which God doesn't like - that's a pretty simplified definition but I think it works