h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

...and if he is, could he create a round circle?

Now what would be the point of being omnipotent? Seems like a terribly dull existance. Where's the challenge?

A round circle? Is there some sort of terribly clever reference in there? I feel like I'm missing something...

Good lord

Apparently, I am borderline retarded. That's what I get for attempting to make clever posts at 5 am after my brain has alkready gone to bed. The question is SUPPOSED to be;

Is God omnipotent, and if He is, can he then create a round square, a square circle, etc. Could He create a rock so large He cannot lift it? Can he decree a limit to his own omnipotence?

It's meant to be a logical problem of the paradox of omnipotence, a good conversation starter, but I blew it. On the other hand, prefectly round circles are virtually unknown too, so I suppose there is some merit in the original question (try and draw one).

I always assumed god must be impotent, not omnipotent. How else do you explain the virgin birth. It must have been IVF...........

Regarding God's omnipotence, philosophers used to discuss the relationship between God and the Devil (perhaps they still do). It was either John Stuart Mill or Hume who put it like this.

If God is willing to put an end to evil, but unable to, He is impotent.
If God is able but unwilling, He is malicious.
Whence, then, is evil?

The first option obviously can't be considered when thinking about God. The second also goes against the grain. Which leaves the final question.

A perfect artist used to be regarded as one who could draw a perfect circle, free-hand. I can't even draw a straight line with a ruler, so I've got no chance!

Using a stright edge and compas, there are the three "great problems of antiquity" (I think they are called that). Squaring the circle, duplication the cube (making a cube of twice the volume of a given cube), and trisecting an angle (drawing two lines that cross a an unknown angle, and splitting that angle into three equal parts). None of these can be done with only a sright-edge and compas. Howver, if god (if he/she/it* exists) were omnipotant, he/she/it* wuld not be constrained to using clasicial geopmetery, which can all be done using a stright-edge and compas. If there is a god, then he/she/it* is either not onmipotent, hence all the wars and such, or a total and utter (insert expeltive here). Personally, I prefer the third option, no god, but of those two, the not omnipotent one is the one I go for, because I don't want to be the one explaining why I think he/she/it* is a total and utter (insert same expeltive again) to him/her/it*. (Who wants to play "spot the contradiction"?)
*delete as appropriate.

You are referring to theodicy, the logical problem of evil, and I have been too long out of school to remember the names of the various people to grapple with it or what their formulations of the problems were, but the name David Hume does ring a bell. Sounds like an autobiographical guide entry in the making.

The biblical book of Job makes an attempt to grapple with this problem. God basically says 'Job you insignificant insect, how DARE you question Me! Stop whining!' This is reminiscent of Buddha's revelation that if you don't care about something, it can't bother you. All is perspective, including suffering.

I think the general consensus here is that this God fellow is a bit of a louse. A good guide entry to check out is 'Evil from a western perspective'... an interesting refresher on some esoteric facts and notions that I had long since forgotten the details of.

I've never known who to attribute the quote to, but I have memorized the quote. I've even posted it in various other places, as I think it perfectly sums up my feelings toward god. Anyway, the proper quote goes like this:

"Either god cannot abolish evil, or he will not. If he cannot, he is not all powerful; if he will not, he is not all good."

Its a fantastic quote. I think i should print it on some cards and i can just hand them out to any godbotherers that might come doorknocking.

I seem to recall Douglas Adams having something to say about the mentality of a God that tells you you can do anything except eat an apple..........

It is a nice little poser isn't it? There are many formulations of it (although I agree that one is most concise) and they all have to do with the reconciliation of a divine purposer with a fundamentally f**ked up universe.

Process philosophy devotes a good deal of its time to dealing with the problem of theodicy, and is worth investigating. The only failure of the logical problem of evil to completely and utterly solve the God debate once and for is due to those stubborn types who smile gently and insist that Good and Evil are relative concepts not meaningful in a macro-scale cosmology. One can insist, after all, that "God" is neither all powerful nor all good, but rather is something else entirely.

Yeah, like non existant.......... Perhaps those people are too highly trained (to steal a phrase)

Dare i say that if you are talking of good or evil within the confines of the universe created by a 'god' then surely 'god' is either bound by those definitions or has created them in the first place.

BTW, apologies for not actually having studied in any of the relevant areas/ fields. You'll just have to put up with 'the man on the street'

Gladly, being that I'm a man on the street myself for the most part (except when I'm sitting in my apartment).

Your observation is valid if you insist that good and evil are absoloute values, which of course they aren't anymore than hot and cold are. Definitions are, by definition, clumsy attempts to build linguistic models that explain something about reality, but confusing the model with the reality is a rather common and nasty error. Ultimate reality is surely not 'bound' by definitions but rather is the thing being defined.

Also I would rather step away from this whole 'god created the universe' thing and assume that it is at least equally true (or false) to say that the universe created god, or that they are in fact the same thing.

I see what you mean.

I guess that the problem is caused by individuals / groups defining good and evil based on their personal precepts, but then try to force their own definitions on to society as a whole when in fact you can't have a definitive all encompasing definition.

I hope i'm making sense here.

Absoloutely; Nietzche went on at some length about the cultural relativity of good and evil; of course, he wound up going insane eventually. Thinking too much about things can do that to a man.

Society needs to have definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' to function as a society. Those definitions will, of course, vary from one society to another (see DNA's blurb on driving regulations). Rather than explaining to the drooling zombie masses the need to have rules for their own good, it is much easier to define the 'right' and 'wrong' things as universal absoloutes and threaten eternal punishment for violating the precepts of righteousness. The Romans understood this, and it's one reason they institutionalized the idea of hell as we have come to know it today.

But if a big rock were to smash into earth and wipe out all human society, there would be no 'right' 'wrong' 'good' or 'evil' associated with it, for example; the rock would simply be doing what rocks do when planets get in their way, not knowing any better.

That being said, certain things like 'cruelty' and 'idiocy', while being social fictions, are most definately meaningful to the people who wind up having to deal with them. I tend to shy away from 'truth' or 'falsehood' and look for RELATIVE MEANING in a given context.

GOD BLESS MOMMY, DADDY, KENNY, AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WHOLE,WIDE UNIVERSE, SO HELP ME, GOD. AMEN.@

Going back to the bit on whether God should destroy evil in our society; I always thought that God created us and then gave each person the right to decide how they acted out their life. Any wars and such are the fault of sentient beings and as God gave us the responsiblity for our own actions he cannot and should not interfere.

(This doesn't explain natural disasters - But I don't consider them either evil or good just there)

But then how do you explain the serpent in Adam and Eve, or the temptations of Jesus, without some incarnation of Evil to counter god's (alleged) Good?

Indeed, and if you are going to get biblical, when did incest change from being good to evil........etc, but i digress.

How can you say that 'god' gave us free will when we were forbidden to eat an apple, and how much redemption does a god need to extract over thousands of years for one mistake / decision made by ones very very very distant ancestors anyway

Mormon theology states that God gave us the choice of being good and evil, and made the earth to test our individual valiance. Satan wanted everyone to be forced to be good, and was forced to leave heaven. God is not omnipotent... he follows certain universal laws that govern everyone... i.e. he couldn't create an imperfect world or being, so he gave Adam two conflicting laws so Adam could "fall" by his own choice, so to speak.
To sum it up, bad things happen to us to strengthen us, not to make us miserable, or so the LDS church says.

And a Mormon article of faith states "We believe men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression."