Problem with the LDS solution to the Problem of Evil?

[Jason]

Everything else you've said is an attempt to redefine Omnipotence to fit within your theology and I think that is intellectually dishonest.

Everything I've said?

[Luigi]

Making good evil or evil good would be a logical contradiction, just like making a square circle.

I'm not sure what your point is. Can you elaborate on this?

[Jason]

I'm not sure what your point is. Can you elaborate on this?

If we choose to do evil God cannot consider it good, despite his omnipotence.

[Lamanite]

Everything I've said?

I phrased that poorly. I was specifically referring to the sentence that directly followed the sentence I quoted. Here is the sentence I omitted.

"He is omnipotent in the sense that He can do anything that can be done. Logical impossibilities are out."

This qualification is what I felt was unnecessary.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Luigi]

If we choose to do evil God cannot consider it good, despite his omnipotence.

This still doesn't answer my earlier point:

If God is omnipotent He has no constraints (setting logical contradictions aside) and consequently whatever results is his preference. If evil results, that is His preference. If you suggest He couldn't have evil without having something else then that is a constraint and therefore he is not omnipotent.

[paulpatter]

. . . Thus, when something like this comes up - If God is so loving, omniscient, and omnipotent, then how can he allow suffering and evil to continue in this world? The answer is that it is not because God is allowing it, or not allowing it, but it is because it is based upon humanity's moral agency and accountability. If we choose to do evil, it is because we choose, not because something God has done.

I have taken the liberty of underlining your last sentence. The problem I have with it is that God did do something: He created us. He could have "engineered" us without the attributes of "natural" beings, but He didn't. Consequently, if we choose evil, it is because we were designed with a whole set of vulnerabilities to do so, not merely because we have abused our agency. 'Tis true, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."

[Jason]

This still doesn't answer my earlier point:

If God is omnipotent He has no constraints (setting logical contradictions aside) and consequently whatever results is his preference. If evil results, that is His preference. If you suggest He couldn't have evil without having something else then that is a constraint and therefore he is not omnipotent.

It is a logical constraint - the constraint of being unable to enact a logical contradiction.

[Luigi]

It is a logical constraint - the constraint of being unable to enact a logical contradiction.

I don't see how creating a universe without evil would be a logical contradiction. Please enlighten me.

[JDave]

I don't see how creating a universe without evil would be a logical contradiction. Please enlighten me.

Creating a universe without evil would be simple -- if one allowed for creation ex nihilo.

LDS theology doesn't just claim God didn't do an ex nihilo creation, it claims that such is logically impossible. Things are neither created ex nihilo nor destroyed into nihilo (that works . So if you are intent on creating something, it is logically necessary to restrict yourself to that which is available to you. You can't use any square circles in your creation, and you can't destroy evil.

[Luigi]

Creating a universe without evil would be simple -- if one allowed for creation ex nihilo.

LDS theology doesn't just claim God didn't do an ex nihilo creation, it claims that such is logically impossible. Things are neither created ex nihilo nor destroyed into nihilo (that works . So if you are intent on creating something, it is logically necessary to restrict yourself to that which is available to you. You can't use any square circles in your creation, and you can't destroy evil.

So God cannot destroy evil. He is not omnipotent.

[thesometimesaint]

Of course God could eliminate all evil if he wanted. But doing so would eliminate Agency. In which case God would cease to be God. Even God can not choose the consequences of his actions.

[Luigi]

Of course God could eliminate all evil if he wanted. But doing so would eliminate Agency. In which case God would cease to be God. Even God can not choose the consequences of his actions.

Then God isn't omnipotent.

[JDave]

So God cannot destroy evil. He is not omnipotent.

First off, I am fine with God not being omnipotent. But my argument is that it is logically impossible to destroy evil. It simply can't be done -- it is a logical contradiction to claim that one can truly destroy anything into nothingness. Sure you can imagine a universe where such is possible, and if there were a God who were to create such a universe ex nihilo then it wouldn't be a logical contradiction. But that is not possible in LDS theology. You are requiring God to be omnipotent according to the rules of some fictional ex nihilo universe.

[thesometimesaint]

Luigi:

Being omnipotent is not the same as being able to do anything you want without consequence.

[JDave]

Luigi:

Being omnipotent is not the same as being able to do anything you want without consequence.

Very good point. Very often there is this irrational requirement for God to exist in some sort of a vacuum.

[Luigi]

Luigi:

Being omnipotent is not the same as being able to do anything you want without consequence.

Then what determines the consequences?

[Lamanite]

Very good point. Very often there is this irrational requirement for God to exist in some sort of a vacuum.

Omnipotence- from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power.

The OP was written from a broad perspective that includes multiple theological traditions. To now try and define omnipotence from a strict LDS perspective limits the scope of the discussion.

Kind of like saying, "the true definition of X is Y because we Mormons say it is. "

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jason]

Good cannot exist without evil also being possible.

[paulpatter]

. . . Even God can not choose the consequences of his actions.

He can't? Then how does the principle of foreordination operate, and what is the rationale for it?

To carry forward his own purposes among men and nations, the Lord foreordained chosen spirit children in pre-existence and assigned them to come to earth at particular times and places that they might aid in furthering the divine will [underlining added] (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 290).

Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was (Joseph Smith, Teachings, p. 365).

And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born (Abra. 3:22-23).

It's fine to say that foreordained spirit children had their agency. But if they all exercised it contrary to the purposes for which they were foreordained, the Lord wouldn't be able to "carry forward his own purposes" and further "the divine will." Obviously, though, some did precisely what they were foreordained to do; hence, how can you say "Even God cannot choose the consequences of his actions"? If that were true, it seems to me that foreordination would be meaningless.

[mfbukowski]

It should read like this:

(God made it that way and He will not contradict himself)

Not at all. It makes explicit very much larger issue of the fact that a God who contradicts himself is not a God at all

One suggests God has to obey certain constraints-which is why justice is the way it is- while the other suggests God made the laws the way He did and that's just the way it is.

However this brings us to another way to look at the problem of evil. If God created the universe and all the spiritual laws what would have been his reason for doing so?

Luigi, I know you can do better than this! Come on dude! This is Gospel 101 stuff!

"This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"

THAT is why he allows evil. No evil, no agency; no agency, no immortality and eternal life. No praise, no blame, no sin, no merit. It takes the possibility of evil to do all that. No opposition, no yin no yang.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you for making my point.

Everything else you've said is an attempt to redefine Omnipotence to fit within your theology and I think that is intellectually dishonest. You should feel absolutely comfortable making the above statement without qualification.

In an attempt to emulate Elder Maxwell, I'm not going to over sponsor my beliefs. I will let my idea's go forward based on their own merit and take on a life of their own.

I will say that I found it interesting no one wanted to discuss specifics. This conversation feels like a overly pedantic discussion of something that requires us to "feel after" an inspired comprehension. This required comprehension requires less definitions and more discipleship.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Just curious- I don't care how you define the term actually, but do you really think that God should be able to do logically contradicting things to qualify as "omnipotent"? Do you think others who see God as "omnipotent" define the word that way?

Like I said, just curious. I don't think they do, but I don't much care. It is just a word- it could be "johlaka" since you are the one who is defining the meaning.

But do you want to debate definitions or not? Maybe I am not understanding, but it seems like you keep going back and forth on that one.

[mfbukowski]

But if you create the laws and can control the consequences of those laws why would you create a speed limit?

As a test.

You know- the purpose of life? Primary stuff- Why did we come to earth? "To get a body and be tested"...

[Luigi]

Not at all. It makes explicit very much larger issue of the fact that a God who contradicts himself is not a God at all

Luigi, I know you can do better than this! Come on dude! This is Gospel 101 stuff!

"This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"

THAT is why he allows evil. No evil, no agency; no agency, no immortality and eternal life. No praise, no blame, no sin, no merit. It takes the possibility of evil to do all that. No opposition, no yin no yang.

An omnipotent God could give immortality and eternal life to men without agency and/or in spite of their agency.

[Luigi]

As a test.

You know- the purpose of life? Primary stuff- Why did we come to earth? "To get a body and be tested"...

God wouldn't need to endow all His blessings by testing us. Remember, He makes the rules. Or does he?

[Facsimile 3]

God wouldn't need to endow all His blessings by testing us. Remember, He makes the rules. Or does he?

I would be very interested if you could perhaps better explain what God "making the rules" means.

Edit: Do you think all God has to do is come up with any rules he wants and then make them valid with the Priesthood?