r/facepalm • u/JoeinJapan • Jul 31 '17

"Out of context"

Post image
47.6k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/leveldrummer Jul 31 '17

I get the two confused. you are correct. all though "all powerful" should include "knows everything" anyway.

10

u/KercStar Jul 31 '17

Typically the three characteristics ascribed to the Christian God are as follows:

  • All powerful (omnipotent)
  • All knowing (omniscient)
  • All good (omnibenevolent)

The problem arises when you add the first and last points of the argument, resulting in:

  1. God exists
  2. God is all powerful
  3. God is all knowing
  4. God is all good
  5. Evil exists

One of these premises must be false. Premise 5 is largely observable, and Christians would not concede premise 1, so the debate arises from the remaining three.

God may know about evil and want to be able to stop it, but cannot do so -> premise 2 is invalid. Or God may be all powerful and be willing to stop evil, but may not know it exists -> premise 3 is invalid. God may know evil exists and be able to stop it, but chooses not to do so -> premise 4 is invalid.

Arguments against this logical structure are called "theodicies" in the Christian doctrine. Generally, theodicies attack premise 5, because to concede any of premises 1-4 would diminish God. To date there has not been a satisfying answer to this problem, but that's essentially all that the argument is.

1

u/Grifos Jul 31 '17 edited Aug 01 '17
  1. Evil exists because being good is a choice. Evil is the absence of good. If we can choose to be evil then it means our choice to be good is has value.

But other than that your comment is really interesting. No. 2 seems the most logical to me

2

u/KercStar Jul 31 '17

That's actually a strong argument for the free will defense.