b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 1 If God is the Creator of all things and evil is a thing, then God is the
Creator of evil too. | l*****a
发帖数: 38403 | 2 犹太教是这么说的，出自犹太教的基督教比较喜欢的是把他们的天爸爸分割一下，按自
己需要的那部分使用
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: If God is the Creator of all things and evil is a thing, then God is the
: Creator of evil too.
| t*******r
发帖数: 2940 | 3 "The existence of evil in the world is due to the failure of man to act in
accord with God, "
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: If God is the Creator of all things and evil is a thing, then God is the
: Creator of evil too.
| z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 4 哈哈哈！笑死人了。你家“全知全能”的主子竟然敌不过“failure of man”？
【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: "The existence of evil in the world is due to the failure of man to act in
: accord with God, "
: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0
| b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 5
【在 l*****a 的大作中提到】
: 犹太教是这么说的，出自犹太教的基督教比较喜欢的是把他们的天爸爸分割一下，按自
: 己需要的那部分使用
| J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 6 I don't think God created evil. But it's just a result of giving human and
angel some sort of free will.
God wish human can make choices just as God can. God doesn't want robots
that can make no choices by themselves.
I think God tries to make human who have both free will and always choose to
do the right thing. We are in that process. God will let those who would
like to obey Him and do the good be his chosen people.
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: If God is the Creator of all things and evil is a thing, then God is the
: Creator of evil too.
| b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 7 “I don't think God created evil.”
Then you agree that God is NOT Omnipotence god.
【在 J*******g 的大作中提到】
: I don't think God created evil. But it's just a result of giving human and
: angel some sort of free will.
: God wish human can make choices just as God can. God doesn't want robots
: that can make no choices by themselves.
: I think God tries to make human who have both free will and always choose to
: do the right thing. We are in that process. God will let those who would
: like to obey Him and do the good be his chosen people.
| b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 8 “God wish human can make choices just as God can.”
你既然能猜到God wish什么和God不wish什么，你不就也成了god?
to
【在 J*******g 的大作中提到】
: I don't think God created evil. But it's just a result of giving human and
: angel some sort of free will.
: God wish human can make choices just as God can. God doesn't want robots
: that can make no choices by themselves.
: I think God tries to make human who have both free will and always choose to
: do the right thing. We are in that process. God will let those who would
: like to obey Him and do the good be his chosen people.
| J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 9 God have made us in his image. God doesn't want us to be mentally a slave to
anything, but want us to know the truth and do good by ourselves.
Doing evil is every humans' choice. We may not admit it. I am sure given
enough temptation everyone can do the most evil thing in the world. We have
witnesses this in China especially. How a good man can be ruined by money
power and fame. In my experience, no one is good in our society. We just
didn't show the dark side most of the time.
Evil in this world is not only caused by those who we can see are doing evil
but by all of us. We are part of the evil in this world. You want God to
come and fix it? Then we will all die. God have left us unpunished because
of his mercy so that we can know Him and repent and put our faith in Jesus
Christ so that we can have eternal life (after death and resurrected).
Romans 3
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are
justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ
Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the
shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate
his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed
beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at
the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have
faith in Jesus.
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
| b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 10 “Doing evil is every humans' choice.”
但是既然上帝是Omnibenevolence的，为什么要看人自毁而不相救哪？
to
have
evil
【在 J*******g 的大作中提到】
: God have made us in his image. God doesn't want us to be mentally a slave to
: anything, but want us to know the truth and do good by ourselves.
: Doing evil is every humans' choice. We may not admit it. I am sure given
: enough temptation everyone can do the most evil thing in the world. We have
: witnesses this in China especially. How a good man can be ruined by money
: power and fame. In my experience, no one is good in our society. We just
: didn't show the dark side most of the time.
: Evil in this world is not only caused by those who we can see are doing evil
: but by all of us. We are part of the evil in this world. You want God to
: come and fix it? Then we will all die. God have left us unpunished because
| | | t*******r
发帖数: 2940 | 11 有犹太人那样理解，我引用的文章讨论了各个时代犹太人对Evil的理解。 | J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 12 上帝救了，
神爱世人，甚至将他的独生子赐给他们，叫一切信他的，不至灭亡，反得永生。
--圣经，约翰福音，3章16节
上帝不是把救赎放在今生，而是死后。基督徒相信，基督徒死后会得到永生。
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: “Doing evil is every humans' choice.”
: 但是既然上帝是Omnibenevolence的，为什么要看人自毁而不相救哪？
:
: to
: have
: evil
| J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 13 This is a wrong understanding of God's omnipotence. See this:
James 1:13
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be
tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
Can you say God is not Omnipotence because he cannot be tempted? or tempt
others to do evil? No! Because, that's not his character and God is good!
God cannot do things that violates his very character.
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: “I don't think God created evil.”
: Then you agree that God is NOT Omnipotence god.
| t*******r
发帖数: 2940 | 14 Evil的存在是由于上帝赋予人自由的意志，自由意志本无善恶，当人选择悖逆上帝，产
生了evil的种子。上帝出于他自己的意志允许evil产生，暂时存在，终将消灭，不影响
神的全能。
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: “I don't think God created evil.”
: Then you agree that God is NOT Omnipotence god.
| Z*****e
发帖数: 1629 | 15 有一个人，是从神那里差来的，名叫约翰。 这人来，为要作见证，就是为光作见证，
叫众人因他可以信。
约翰看见耶稣来到他那里，就说：“看哪，神的羔羊，除去世人罪孽的！
那光是真光，照亮一切生在世上的人。
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: “Doing evil is every humans' choice.”
: 但是既然上帝是Omnibenevolence的，为什么要看人自毁而不相救哪？
:
: to
: have
: evil
| b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 16 Omnipotence paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
The omnipotence paradox is a family of semantic paradoxes which address two
issues: Is an omnipotent entity logically possible? and What do we mean by '
omnipotence'?. The paradox states that: if a being can perform any action,
then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to
perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other
hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then
there exists something it cannot do.
One version of the omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone
lift it?" If he could lift the rock, then it seems that the being would not
have been omnipotent to begin with in that he would have been incapable of
creating a heavy enough stone; if he could not lift the stone, then it seems
that the being either would never have been omnipotent to begin with or
would have ceased to be omnipotent upon his creation of the stone.[1] | Z*****e
发帖数: 1629 | 17 逻辑是人类认识的工具，它可能有人类认知的局限性。
我认为神是超越逻辑的。
two
'
then
stone
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: Omnipotence paradox
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
: The omnipotence paradox is a family of semantic paradoxes which address two
: issues: Is an omnipotent entity logically possible? and What do we mean by '
: omnipotence'?. The paradox states that: if a being can perform any action,
: then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to
: perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other
: hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then
: there exists something it cannot do.
: One version of the omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone
| s*********t
发帖数: 4253 | 18 很简单，Evil 是个选择。
God 给人有个自由意识，人可以选择【好】和【坏】。
当然，如果选择【坏】就要承担那后果。
就比如，你汽车可以速度表可以达到180mph.
但国家交通法规在很多地方就限定在 65 到 75 以下。
那你可以开到150mph 甚至180mph吗？可以，车子是你的没人会阻止你。
但越过界了你就要承担那后果。。
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: If God is the Creator of all things and evil is a thing, then God is the
: Creator of evil too.
| b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 19 “God 给人有个自由意识，人可以选择【好】和【坏】。”
可这不符合上帝Omnibenevolence的特质。因为上帝知道人会选择坏（因为上帝的
Omnipotence），如果上帝无条件地爱世人（因为上帝的Omnibenevolence),上帝就不会
给人下这个套。
【在 s*********t 的大作中提到】
: 很简单，Evil 是个选择。
: God 给人有个自由意识，人可以选择【好】和【坏】。
: 当然，如果选择【坏】就要承担那后果。
: 就比如，你汽车可以速度表可以达到180mph.
: 但国家交通法规在很多地方就限定在 65 到 75 以下。
: 那你可以开到150mph 甚至180mph吗？可以，车子是你的没人会阻止你。
: 但越过界了你就要承担那后果。。
| J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 20 You just need to read on and people already gave the answers one of them is
very similar to what I gave to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
Proposed answers
A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or
Richard Swinburne is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of
omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything
at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his
nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical
absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make
a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest
possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible
supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18 which says it
is "impossible for God to lie." This raises the question, similar to the
Euthyphro Dilemma, of where this law of logic, which God is bound to obey,
comes from. According to these theologians, this law is not a law above God
that he assents to but, rather, logic is an eternal part of God's nature,
like his omniscience or omnibenevolence. God obeys the laws of logic because
God is eternally logical in the same way that God does not perform evil
actions because God is eternally good. So, God, by nature logical and unable
to violate the laws of logic, cannot make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift
it because that would violate the law of non contradiction by creating an
immovable object and an unstoppable force.
Another common response is that since God is supposedly omnipotent, the
phrase "could not lift" does not make sense and the paradox is meaningless.[
12][13] This may mean that the complexity involved in rightly understanding
omnipotence---contra all the logical details involved in misunderstanding it
---is a function of the fact that omnipotence, like infinity, is perceived
at all by contrasting reference to those complex and variable things which
it is not. But, an alternative meaning is that a non-corporeal God cannot
lift anything, but can raise it (a linguistic pedantry) - or to use the
beliefs of Christians[verification needed] and Hindus (that there is one God
, who can be manifest as several different beings) that whilst it is
possible for God to do all things, it is not possible for all his
incarnations to do them. As such, God could create a stone so heavy that, in
one incarnation, he was unable to lift it - but would be able to do
something that an incarnation that could lift it could not.
Other responses claim that the question is sophistry, meaning it makes
grammatical sense, but has no intelligible meaning. The lifting a rock
paradox (Can God lift a stone larger than he can carry?) uses human
characteristics to cover up the main skeletal structure of the question.
With these assumptions made, two arguments can stem from it:
Lifting covers up the definition of translation, which means moving
something from one point in space to another. With this in mind, the real
question would be, "Can God move a rock from one location in space to
another that is larger than possible?" In order for the rock to not be able
to move from one space to another, it would have to be larger than space
itself. However, it is impossible for a rock to be larger than space, as
space will always adjust itself to cover the space of the rock. If the
supposed rock was out of space-time dimension, then the question would not
make sense, because it would be impossible to move an object from one
location in space to another if there is no space to begin with, meaning the
faulting is with the logic of the question and not God's capabilities.
The words, "Lift a Stone", are used instead to substitute capability.
With this in mind, essentially the question is asking if God is incapable,
so the real question would be, "Is God capable of being incapable?" If God
is capable of being incapable, it means that He is incapable, because He has
the potential to not be able to do something. Conversely, if God is
incapable of being incapable, then the two inabilities cancel each other out
, making God have the capability to do something.
The act of killing oneself is not applicable to an omnipotent being, since,
despite that such an act does involve some power, it also involves a lack of
power: the human person who can kill himself is already not indestructible,
and, in fact, every agent constituting his environment is more powerful in
some ways than himself. In other words, all non-omnipotent agents are
concretely synthetic: constructed as contingencies of other, smaller, agents
, meaning that they, unlike an omnipotent agent, logically can exist not
only in multiple instantiation (by being constructed out of the more basic
agents of which they are made), but are each bound to a differentiated
location in space contra transcendent omnipresence.
Thomas Aquinas asserts that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding of
omnipotence. He maintains that inherent contradictions and logical
impossibilities do not fall under the omnipotence of God.[14] J. L Cowan
sees this paradox as a reason to reject the concept of 'absolute'
omnipotence,[15] while others, such as René Descartes, argue that God is
absolutely omnipotent, despite the problem.[9]
C. S. Lewis argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock
so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a
square circle"; that it is not logically coherent in terms of power to
think that omnipotence includes the power to do the logically impossible. So
asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is
just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical
contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in
lifting the rock: the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth
value of either true or false, it cannot possess both. This is justified by
observing that in order for the omnipotent agent to create such a stone, the
omnipotent agent must already be more powerful than itself: such a stone is
too heavy for the omnipotent agent to lift, but the omnipotent agent
already can create such a stone; If an omnipotent agent already is more
powerful than itself, then it already is just that powerful. Which means
that its power to create a stone that’s too heavy for it to lift is
identical to its power to lift that very stone. While this doesn’t quite
make complete sense, Lewis wished to stress its implicit point: that even
within the attempt to prove that the concept of omnipotence is immediately
incoherent, one admits that it is immediately coherent, and that the only
difference is that this attempt if forced to admit this despite that the
attempt is constituted by a perfectly irrational route to its own unwilling
end, with a perfectly irrational set of 'things' included in that end.
In other words, that the 'limit' on what omnipotence 'can' do is not a limit
on its actual agency, but an epistemological boundary without which
omnipotence could not be identified (paradoxically or otherwise) in the
first place. In fact, this process is merely a fancier form of the classic
Liar Paradox: If I say, "I am a liar", then how can it be true if I am
telling the truth therewith, and, if I am telling the truth therewith, then
how can I be a liar? So, to think that omnipotence is an epistemological
paradox is like failing to recognize that, when taking the statement, 'I am
a liar' self-referentially, the statement is reduced to an actual failure to
lie. In other words, if one maintains the supposedly 'initial' position
that the necessary conception of omnipotence includes the 'power' to
compromise both itself and all other identity, and if one concludes from
this position that omnipotence is epistemologically incoherent, then one
implicitly is asserting that one's own 'initial' position is incoherent.
Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless.
Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of
the two words, "God can" before it.[12] Lewis additionally said that "unless
something is self-evident, nothing can be proved", which implies for the
debate on omnipotence that, as in matter, so in the human understanding of
truth: it takes no true insight to destroy a perfectly integrated structure,
and the effort to destroy has greater effect than an equal effort to build;
so, a man is thought a fool who assumes its integrity, and thought an
abomination who argues for it. It is easier to teach a fish to swim in outer
space than to convince a room full of ignorant fools why it cannot be done.
John Christian Uy said that it is just the same as someone with double-
bladed sword (accidentally omnipotent), or sword and a shield (essentially
omnipotent). Therefore, an accidentally omnipotent deity CAN remove its
omnipotence while an essentially omnipotent deity CANNOT do anything that
would make it non-omnipotent. Both however, have no limitations so far other
than the essential omnipotent being who cannot do anything which will make
it non-omnipotent like making someone equal with him, lowering or improving
himself (for omnipotence is the highest) etc. It could, however, make
someone with a great power, though it cannot be 99% because Omnipotence is
infinite, because that created being is not equal with him. Overall, God in
the Christian Bible, is essentially omnipotent.
In a 1955 article published in the philosophy journal Mind, J. L. Mackie
attempted to resolve the paradox by distinguishing between first-order
omnipotence (unlimited power to act) and second-order omnipotence (unlimited
power to determine what powers to act things shall have).[16] An omnipotent
being with both first and second-order omnipotence at a particular time
might restrict its own power to act and, henceforth, cease to be omnipotent
in either sense. There has been considerable philosophical dispute since
Mackie, as to the best way to formulate the paradox of omnipotence in formal
logic.[17]
Another common response to the omnipotence paradox is to try to define
omnipotence to mean something weaker than absolute omnipotence, such as
definition 3 or 4 above. The paradox can be resolved by simply stipulating
that omnipotence does not require the being to have abilities which are
logically impossible, but only to be able to do anything which conforms to
the laws of logic. A good example of a modern defender of this line of
reasoning is George Mavrodes.[5] Essentially, Mavrodes argues that it is no
limitation on a being's omnipotence to say that it cannot make a round
square. Such a "task" is termed by him a "pseudo-task" as it is self-
contradictory and inherently nonsense. Harry Frankfurt—following from
Descartes—has responded to this solution with a proposal of his own: that
God can create a stone impossible to lift and also lift said stone
For why should God not be able to perform the task in question? To be
sure, it is a task—the task of lifting a stone which He cannot lift—whose
description is self-contradictory. But if God is supposed capable of
performing one task whose description is self-contradictory—that of
creating the problematic stone in the first place—why should He not be
supposed capable of performing another—that of lifting the stone? After all
, is there any greater trick in performing two logically impossible tasks
than there is in performing one?[18]
If a being is accidentally omnipotent, then it can resolve the paradox by
creating a stone which it cannot lift and thereby becoming non-omnipotent.
Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible for an accidentally
omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. This raises the question, however, of
whether or not the being was ever truly omnipotent, or just capable of
great power.[8] On the other hand, the ability to voluntarily give up great
power is often thought of as central to the notion of the Christian
Incarnation.[19]
If a being is essentially omnipotent, then it can also resolve the paradox (
as long as we take omnipotence not to require absolute omnipotence). The
omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible
for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being can do what is
logically impossible and have no limitations just like the accidentally
omnipotent but the ability to make oneself non-omnipotent. The creation of a
stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility. The
omnipotent being cannot create such a stone because its power will be equal
to him and thus, remove his omnipotence for there can only be one
omnipotent being in existence, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence.
This solution works even with definition 2, as long as we also know the
being is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so. However, it is
possible for non-omnipotent beings to compromise their own powers, which
presents the paradox that non-omnipotent beings can do something (to
themselves) which an essentially omnipotent being cannot do (to itself).
This was essentially the position taken by Augustine of Hippo in his The
City of God:
For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not
on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him
, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things
for the very reason that He is omnipotent.[20]
Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation
that would in effect make God not God.
two
'
then
stone
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: Omnipotence paradox
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
: The omnipotence paradox is a family of semantic paradoxes which address two
: issues: Is an omnipotent entity logically possible? and What do we mean by '
: omnipotence'?. The paradox states that: if a being can perform any action,
: then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to
: perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other
: hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then
: there exists something it cannot do.
: One version of the omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone
| t*******r
发帖数: 2940 | 21 人如果没有自由意志就不具备上帝的形象。每一次选择都是一次学习，每一个错误神都
能改正，直到直善。神的全善更得展显。
【在 b********n 的大作中提到】
: “God 给人有个自由意识，人可以选择【好】和【坏】。”
: 可这不符合上帝Omnibenevolence的特质。因为上帝知道人会选择坏（因为上帝的
: Omnipotence），如果上帝无条件地爱世人（因为上帝的Omnibenevolence),上帝就不会
: 给人下这个套。
|
|
