From the original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
I dunno, I've got my self into a huge, sticky mental web that I can't pull myself out of.
|
At the risk of sounding like a like a jerk: garbage in garbage out.
If you start with all kinds of silly assumptions, some of which are contradictory, you are going to get silly answers. It is like trying to stick a circle into a square, it doesn't really work even if you manage to
force them together.
For example, lets suppose we all agree "evil" exists.
Based on a stereotypical old testament Christian god, you run into problems real fast. In fact, Epicurus understood this way before monotheism came about.
Quote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
|
As far as I know, nobody has come up with a satisfactory answer to Epicurus's dilemma. So generations upon generations have earned degrees in theology, only to fritter away their lives in pointless mental gymnastics.
.. fritter away is a poor choice of words, since it implies there was something useful to be done with a theology degree to begin with.
If instead we are talking about a much more nebulous idea of god, you still get trouble. By nebulous I mean vague conceptions like "god is love" or "god is the force holding the universe together" etc etc. In other words, people too intelligent to believe in the fire and brimstone god, but still too uncertain to let go altogether.
The problem with this is that one is trivially redefining the meaning of "god." Replace the term god is love with love is the greatest force for good on the earth, and you have the same idea. But the second one has no theological meaning at all, while the first does.
In short, this god is nothing but word games. More mental gymnastics. In any case, he/she/it is still unable to prevent evil.