Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Omnipotence and Moral Perfection

Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I was reading through some of the debates on this website on the Problem of Evil and found one in particular featuring Fkkize and Kasmic which brought what I thought to be an interesting aspect to light. (1)

Now Kasmic goes to argue exactly what one might expect; that is to say that Free will is a moral good. That is follows that a God as described would not restrict free will as it would be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would itself be inherently evil.

While I do not find this argument satisfying to the problem of evil, it does highlight an interesting point.

Kasmic argued; "This premise (If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.) creates an interesting balance. Morality addresses what actions should or should not be taken. Omnipotence addresses capability. Thus this premise leaves the possibility that there are some things an omnipotent and morally perfect God would be capable of doing but due to perfect morals would not."

This caused a few questions to come to mind.

Are omnipotence and moral perfection compatible?

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

(1) http://www.debate.org...
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 3:36:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:


Are omnipotence and moral perfection compatible?

(1) http://www.debate.org...

Doesn't that sound like heaven? The entirety of human suffering in all of human existence on earth seems to be inconsequential when compared with eternity in heaven/hell.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 4:49:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:
I was reading through some of the debates on this website on the Problem of Evil and found one in particular featuring Fkkize and Kasmic which brought what I thought to be an interesting aspect to light. (1)

Now Kasmic goes to argue exactly what one might expect; that is to say that Free will is a moral good. That is follows that a God as described would not restrict free will as it would be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would itself be inherently evil.

While I do not find this argument satisfying to the problem of evil, it does highlight an interesting point.

Kasmic argued; "This premise (If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.) creates an interesting balance. Morality addresses what actions should or should not be taken. Omnipotence addresses capability. Thus this premise leaves the possibility that there are some things an omnipotent and morally perfect God would be capable of doing but due to perfect morals would not."

This caused a few questions to come to mind.

Are omnipotence and moral perfection compatible?
Moral perfection isn't comprehendable it is merely a conjecture. This question isn't answerable it can only be an assumption or opinion.
Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?
How can an individual who doesn't know what morally perfect is be able to know or claim something is such. Do theists think that God should be morally perfect based on what we conjecture Gods wisdom must be? yes. Can anyone describe what it is to be morally perfect?, no
(1) http://www.debate.org...
Btw, the problem of evil isn't a problem for God. It is a problem for those who do not possess the wisdom to interpret it as God does. The only logical conclusion one could derive, assuming there are inspired words from God to man, is that God conveyed an idea of evil based solely on the limited wisdom of people not the actuality of what evil may be.. Evil may be nothing but the inability to understand reality with the proper wisdom. Evil may be a continuing learning process that isn't truely realized until after death of the body. Kind of like the difference between what a bullet is to a naked human compared to what it is to a "Superman". We both know exactly what a bullet is but we are interpreting it's effect because of what we are limited to in regards to what we know about ourselves.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 6:41:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:
I was reading through some of the debates on this website on the Problem of Evil and found one in particular featuring Fkkize and Kasmic which brought what I thought to be an interesting aspect to light. (1)

Now Kasmic goes to argue exactly what one might expect; that is to say that Free will is a moral good. That is follows that a God as described would not restrict free will as it would be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would itself be inherently evil.

While I do not find this argument satisfying to the problem of evil, it does highlight an interesting point.

Kasmic argued; "This premise (If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.) creates an interesting balance. Morality addresses what actions should or should not be taken. Omnipotence addresses capability. Thus this premise leaves the possibility that there are some things an omnipotent and morally perfect God would be capable of doing but due to perfect morals would not."

This caused a few questions to come to mind.

Are omnipotence and moral perfection compatible?

For one, perfection or perfect is a word in more modern day use to mean having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be. Or make (something) completely free from faults or defects, or as close to such a condition as possible. Which can be much different from it's use in the days the KJV was translated which is in the OED ; To bring to completion; to complete, finish, consummate; to carry through, accomplish.

Hence though not in the modern Christian"s mind but the true biblical view, complete, fulfilled accomplished is the use in the bible. For example:
Gen_6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Gen_17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Deu_18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.
Deu_25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Deu_32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Though yes there are other uses like in reference to without blemish, but mainly it"s completion and the like.
So from what unaccomplished to what accomplished are you talking about? That God would be? What is miss understood is God"s Word is to be accomplished, fulfilled completed, not God. But if you are talking about characteristics that make perfect, that would be according to who, the observer of God? Don"t make sense, because God is the Maker of all things therefore the Judge of what is perfect in the sense of desirable characteristic"s. Therefore, there is no judge of God, that is of any consequence to God, or anyone who believes in Him. In that case it is the judge of God that is a consequence to himself.


Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

A tree is a perfection of itself, and rock is a perfection of itself. Now in the judgement of another that tree or rock may not be perfect according to their judgement, hence lacking, but it doesn"t change to true status of the tree or rock. Therefore, God who always was always is and always will be, is constantly who and what He is for eternity. He is what He is, you know "I am that I am" tell them that "I am" sent you. Therefore, it is in His Judgment on whether something is lacking or not. And that would be in accordance to the fulfillment of His Word.

and in the case of morals and God, it's is moral to be like God according to His Judgement. therefore relative to God, and those who believe. not of any consequence to the non-believer because the non-believe's fulfillment is death anyway.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 7:57:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:
I was reading through some of the debates on this website on the Problem of Evil and found one in particular featuring Fkkize and Kasmic which brought what I thought to be an interesting aspect to light. (1)

Now Kasmic goes to argue exactly what one might expect; that is to say that Free will is a moral good. That is follows that a God as described would not restrict free will as it would be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would itself be inherently evil.

While I do not find this argument satisfying to the problem of evil, it does highlight an interesting point.

Kasmic argued; "This premise (If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.) creates an interesting balance. Morality addresses what actions should or should not be taken. Omnipotence addresses capability. Thus this premise leaves the possibility that there are some things an omnipotent and morally perfect God would be capable of doing but due to perfect morals would not."

This caused a few questions to come to mind.

Are omnipotence and moral perfection compatible?

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

(1) http://www.debate.org...

I suppose one possible response would be to say God can do anything, but that does not mean he has to do any of it. That is to sa, although it surely is within God's capability to do somthing wicked, he chooses to refrain from doing it.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 8:33:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 7:57:22 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:
I was reading through some of the debates on this website on the Problem of Evil and found one in particular featuring Fkkize and Kasmic which brought what I thought to be an interesting aspect to light. (1)

Now Kasmic goes to argue exactly what one might expect; that is to say that Free will is a moral good. That is follows that a God as described would not restrict free will as it would be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would itself be inherently evil.

While I do not find this argument satisfying to the problem of evil, it does highlight an interesting point.

Kasmic argued; "This premise (If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.) creates an interesting balance. Morality addresses what actions should or should not be taken. Omnipotence addresses capability. Thus this premise leaves the possibility that there are some things an omnipotent and morally perfect God would be capable of doing but due to perfect morals would not."

This caused a few questions to come to mind.

Are omnipotence and moral perfection compatible?

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

(1) http://www.debate.org...

I suppose one possible response would be to say God can do anything, but that does not mean he has to do any of it. That is to sa, although it surely is within God's capability to do somthing wicked, he chooses to refrain from doing it.

If God is defined as being omnibenevolent, such that if he were to act immorally he could no longer be described as God, then it's not quite true that God has the capability to do something wicked, because if he were to do something wicked then we'd no longer be talking about God at all. In that sense, God is required to be moral, since his nature as God restricts what he can and can't do.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 8:43:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 8:33:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2016 7:57:22 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:
I was reading through some of the debates on this website on the Problem of Evil and found one in particular featuring Fkkize and Kasmic which brought what I thought to be an interesting aspect to light. (1)

Now Kasmic goes to argue exactly what one might expect; that is to say that Free will is a moral good. That is follows that a God as described would not restrict free will as it would be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would itself be inherently evil.

While I do not find this argument satisfying to the problem of evil, it does highlight an interesting point.

Kasmic argued; "This premise (If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.) creates an interesting balance. Morality addresses what actions should or should not be taken. Omnipotence addresses capability. Thus this premise leaves the possibility that there are some things an omnipotent and morally perfect God would be capable of doing but due to perfect morals would not."

This caused a few questions to come to mind.

Are omnipotence and moral perfection compatible?

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

(1) http://www.debate.org...

I suppose one possible response would be to say God can do anything, but that does not mean he has to do any of it. That is to sa, although it surely is within God's capability to do somthing wicked, he chooses to refrain from doing it.

If God is defined as being omnibenevolent, such that if he were to act immorally he could no longer be described as God, then it's not quite true that God has the capability to do something wicked, because if he were to do something wicked then we'd no longer be talking about God at all. In that sense, God is required to be moral, since his nature as God restricts what he can and can't do.
I thought about somthing similar, but I don't like such semantic arguments.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 2:08:28 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 8:33:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2016 7:57:22 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:
I was reading through some of the debates on this website on the Problem of Evil and found one in particular featuring Fkkize and Kasmic which brought what I thought to be an interesting aspect to light. (1)

Now Kasmic goes to argue exactly what one might expect; that is to say that Free will is a moral good. That is follows that a God as described would not restrict free will as it would be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would itself be inherently evil.

While I do not find this argument satisfying to the problem of evil, it does highlight an interesting point.

Kasmic argued; "This premise (If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.) creates an interesting balance. Morality addresses what actions should or should not be taken. Omnipotence addresses capability. Thus this premise leaves the possibility that there are some things an omnipotent and morally perfect God would be capable of doing but due to perfect morals would not."

This caused a few questions to come to mind.

Are omnipotence and moral perfection compatible?

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

(1) http://www.debate.org...

I suppose one possible response would be to say God can do anything, but that does not mean he has to do any of it. That is to sa, although it surely is within God's capability to do somthing wicked, he chooses to refrain from doing it.

If God is defined as being omnibenevolent, such that if he were to act immorally he could no longer be described as God, then it's not quite true that God has the capability to do something wicked, because if he were to do something wicked then we'd no longer be talking about God at all. In that sense, God is required to be moral, since his nature as God restricts what he can and can't do.
Too bad man's judgment of God is a contradiction and straw man of God. You do not know and cannot prove what is wicked to anyone but yourself, much less God. Hence you are incapable of knowing if God can do something "wicked" based on what wicked actually is...I.e. What God defines as wicked is the truth, not what people assume is wicked. And if you want to assume God has told people through his word what is wicked, the only logical conclusion is what is wicked to humans based on their limited wisdom, not what actually is wicked based on Gods wisdom.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 9:40:34 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

In my view that's a false dichotomy since God's choices are determined by his moral perfection, and they are necessary in that sense.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 6:32:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

Morality is defined by being in accord with God's will.
Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:19:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 6:32:28 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

Morality is defined by being in accord with God's will.

So, If God decided to be vindictive, this would be moral?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:29:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 7:19:59 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:32:28 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

Morality is defined by being in accord with God's will.

So, If God decided to be vindictive, this would be moral?

Pretty much. Now I would argue that this is not part of God's nature, but if it were then vindictiveness would be a good thing.
Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:45:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 7:29:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:19:59 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:32:28 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

Morality is defined by being in accord with God's will.

So, If God decided to be vindictive, this would be moral?

Pretty much. Now I would argue that this is not part of God's nature, but if it were then vindictiveness would be a good thing.

Right, so you are saying morality is exemplified by God's actions.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 7:59:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 7:45:19 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:29:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/5/2016 7:19:59 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 4/5/2016 6:32:28 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

Morality is defined by being in accord with God's will.

So, If God decided to be vindictive, this would be moral?

Pretty much. Now I would argue that this is not part of God's nature, but if it were then vindictiveness would be a good thing.

Right, so you are saying morality is exemplified by God's actions.

Not quite. God has an unchanging will. He created us for a purpose that is in accordance with that unchanging will. A moral action is one that is in accordance with that purpose.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 5:57:41 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 8:33:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2016 7:57:22 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 4/4/2016 3:03:58 PM, Seagull wrote:
I was reading through some of the debates on this website on the Problem of Evil and found one in particular featuring Fkkize and Kasmic which brought what I thought to be an interesting aspect to light. (1)

Now Kasmic goes to argue exactly what one might expect; that is to say that Free will is a moral good. That is follows that a God as described would not restrict free will as it would be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would itself be inherently evil.

While I do not find this argument satisfying to the problem of evil, it does highlight an interesting point.

Kasmic argued; "This premise (If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.) creates an interesting balance. Morality addresses what actions should or should not be taken. Omnipotence addresses capability. Thus this premise leaves the possibility that there are some things an omnipotent and morally perfect God would be capable of doing but due to perfect morals would not."

This caused a few questions to come to mind.

Are omnipotence and moral perfection compatible?

Do theists believe God to be morally perfect out of necessity or choice?

(1) http://www.debate.org...

I suppose one possible response would be to say God can do anything, but that does not mean he has to do any of it. That is to sa, although it surely is within God's capability to do somthing wicked, he chooses to refrain from doing it.

If God is defined as being omnibenevolent, such that if he were to act immorally he could no longer be described as God, then it's not quite true that God has the capability to do something wicked, because if he were to do something wicked then we'd no longer be talking about God at all. In that sense, God is required to be moral, since his nature as God restricts what he can and can't do.
youre assuming there actually is something that is ultimately wicked. just because humans are taught it is based on their limited wisdon doesnt therefore mean it actually is ultimtely wicked. you cannot know what is wicked to god. this is a non argument untl you prove what is wicked to God.