More on the argument from evil. Another way that God can escape the argument is by not being actually omnipotent or omniscient in the tautological sense. Mormonism’s God is like this. He is not in fact all-powerful, but is subject to underlying rules of the cosmos. Because of the nature of the universe, he doesn’t have the power/ability to make other gods like him with a wave of his hand, and he can’t take away our free will because free will is the characteristic that fundamentally defines us as Intelligences which existed before we had anything to do with God (i.e., before he created spirits and bodies for us).
One could also imagine that a God could exist who was otherwise deficient. Polytheist’s gods are generally neither omnipotent, omniscient, nor morally perfect.
While God’s omnipotence and omniscience are inferred by believers, they are never stated directly in a tautological sense in the Bible at least.
In any case, I thought of a final possibility. What if God’s existence is a paradox? What if the argument from evil is totally solid, and nevertheless there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. You might say such a thing is proven logically impossible. You might be right. But what if God exists despite logical impossibility? What if God exists somewhere logic can’t penetrate?
Again, I don’t know what that would mean, but since we’re hypothetically dealing with a supreme being here, there’s no reason to necessarily assume that logic even applies. Maybe the closer you get to God, the more things like logic break down, sumberging into one glorious incomprehensible whole?
Sailing to Byzantium 
For the record, I’m really enjoying reading your thoughts. You’re making me go back and rethink things I haven’t thought much about in a while. Thank you for sharing your journey.
My pleasure! Thanks for reading and commenting!
There’s some interesting thoughts on how one might flesh out the paradox view at this philosophy blog (apologies that you’ll have to cut and paste; this computational physicist knows nothing of html tags!):
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2006/09/performing_cont.html#more
Myself, I follow A. N. Whitehead and the Process Theists, and deny omnipotence [1] and probably also Creation Ex Nihilo. Interestingly, there’s an argument that since ‘omnipotence’ is a particular theoretical unpacking of the concept of ‘almightiness’, and may not be a *necessary* upacking of the said concept; all God has to be is Almighty enough to be worthy of worship, not the Almightiest concievable being [2].
[1] Granted, a lot hangs on what omnipotence means; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has at least 3 definitions, possible more…
[2] I’ve seen this view attributed to Peter Geach, a theist who accepted that God’s goodness was by definition incompatible with omnipotence, and so chose to deny the latter. I’m not altogether sure that the traditional concept of omnipotence is that compatible with Christian theology anyway; it seems to imply some very odd things about Christology and the crucifiction.
Oops. Looks like it recognises links when it sees them. Clever wordpress!
“I’m not altogether sure that the traditional concept of omnipotence is that compatible with Christian theology anyway; it seems to imply some very odd things about Christology and the crucifiction.”
Right- if God is omnipotent, why can’t he just wave our hands and make sin go away? If God is omnipotent, he doesn;t have to do anything to make a particular desired result come to pass,certainly not suffer and die in horrible agony.
So what about the concept of God self-limiting? Him doing so to allow free will for example? Is that a possibility?
Kullervo: Yep. Pretty much. Philosophical considerations aside, some of this is due to my suspiscions about the doctrine of substitionary atonement [1] — which in many ways seems to assume an omnipotent God with a very perverse sense of humour — and the rest is because the notions of power that it’s connected with seem to have a lot to do with a kind of autocratic rulership that seems to run counter to a lot of what’s good and perceptive in Christianity.
beingmade: That’s a good option (the Open Theist movement — who are condidered heretics by their Evangelical fellows, I hear) make use of something like this. The trouble is, is that unless it is likely that free-will [2] is *such* a great good that it justifies God standing by and doing nothing during the most horrible events that can transpire [3] — which may be true, but I’d not like to try and argue for it — then you have to fall back on other defenses, and these happen to be the ones used by those who don’t think that God is self-limiting in this way. On the one hand, that doesn’t matter if you’ve got other reasons for believing it to be so, but on the other, it doesn’t entirely help with all possible evils.
[1] Thankfully, not the only model available, though it is pretty big with the more conservative Evangelical Anglicans over here in the UK.
[2] Which is a notoriously difficult concept to define anyhow.
[3] We have to be careful here. The philosophical problem of evil is typically framed in two ways — logical and evidential. The logical problem requires such strong assumptions that almost no philosopher will bother defending it these days; the evidential — which is where the ‘likely’ bit comes in — is a lot more tricky.
I am not a philosopher – being a realist make it a lot more easy. You have a choice – ok, two. Either you chose to believe in God Almighty, or you chose not to believe in Him. If you chose not to believe in Him, you don’t get more choices. There is nothing else – all the else that everybody is ranting and wondering and worrying about is nothing – a void. At best – the hell.
God Almighty is, He was and He will be – stop thinking and believe.
Wrong, Kowie. That’s a false dilemma.
False Dilemma? Don’t think so – you see, believe is stronger than facts. If I believe in you because I love you, and somebody come with facts of bad things you did, I will still believe in you. If i now don’t believe in you anymore, I have never really believe in you. For me there is a difference in believing somebody or believe in.
I believe IN God and very lucky for me, I also believe God.
You’re making no sense at all.
You say I have only two choices, which are to believe in God Almighty (and I assume you mean the Christian God Almighty), or choose not to believe in him, at which point I have no choices. That’s just not so.
I can believe in God almighty, or I can believe in Allah, Vishnu, the Roman gods, or no gods at all. I can be a positive atheist, a weak atheist, an agnostic, or i can formulate my own conception of the divine and/or the metaphysical composition of the universe.
Once again, your thinking rests on the pre-decided conclusion that God exists and wants you to believe. Of course you then reach the conclusion that God exists and wants you to believe! That’s completely circular, and based on nothing but wishful thinking.
And when you say things like “stop thinking and believe,” you pretty much compel me to not stop thinking. Under no circumstances, I repeat- no circumstances, am I simply going to “stop thinking.” The proposition is ludicrous.
I would gladly believe, but I’m not goign to believe just because you tell me to. that’s insane. I don’t even know you. And “because the Bible says so” is an equally unconvincing reason. I’m not even going to argue that with you.
You’ve made your point, and I guess you’ve planted seed on rocky soil.
“because the Bible says so” – not part of my comments. You have a free will, so you decide.
There is really only two choices – either you believe in God or you don’t. The other choices that you mention is all one – they all are part of the ‘don’t’.
I don’t want to tell you how to believe – and defnitely not because I said so. I am telling you how I believe.
Lets hope for a soily hole in that rock! 🙂