Limited Omnipotence Key To Problem Of Evil

[Brian 2.0]

Amen my fellow Georgian...but yes he is all powerful but will not violate agency. Although he establishing laws, he is perfectly righteous so he obeys his own laws. One reason I love him so much.

If a man with a shotgun, on his way to a school to go on a shooting spree, gets a flat tire and a cop pulls over to help and sees the guns and arrests him, thus preventing a school massacre... Many would claim God's mercy in intervening to prevent the shooting.

If God did intervene to help the shooter get caught is that not interfering with the shooters agency?

[Silhouette]

If a man with a shotgun, on his way to a school to go on a shooting spree, gets a flat tire and a cop pulls over to help and sees the guns and arrests him, thus preventing a school massacre... Many would claim God's mercy in intervening to prevent the shooting.

If God did intervene to help the shooter get caught is that not interfering with the shooters agency?

That is a good point and a good question. I'm curious to see the comments about situations like this because I've wondered about this too sometimes.

[Calm]

It interferes with the carrying out of his choice, not the choice itself. Choice is an intent, what we would do in a particular situation. Sometimes it happens that way and we can follow through on our choice and make more choices based on that experience, other times it happens that our attempts to act are interfered with and we do not act out our choice in full and make different choices in following then we would have.

God would need to completely isolate every human being to allow them to act fully without interference, but then many choices would be removed because they would have the opportunity to make choices involving others.

It is an act of faith, but I assume God acts when needed and refrains when needed in order to maximize at least two parts of our mortal experience...first, our agency so that we can put our choices into action and thus experience the consequences of them and learn from them about ourselves and whether we like our past choices or will change them in the future and second, our opportunities to learn from others' choices...which two things create a mortal experience that packs in the most opportunitites for figuring out through experience and observation the most important thing we learn in mortality in my view and that is the type of person we want to be/what kind of existence do we want to have for eternity.

[stemelbow]

If a man with a shotgun, on his way to a school to go on a shooting spree, gets a flat tire and a cop pulls over to help and sees the guns and arrests him, thus preventing a school massacre... Many would claim God's mercy in intervening to prevent the shooting.

If God did intervene to help the shooter get caught is that not interfering with the shooters agency?

I don't see how. Interfering with the shooter's agency would be to force him to stop his massacre.

[ERayR]

If God did intervene to help the shooter get caught is that not interfering with the shooters agency?

 

Nope he just eliminated one of the options.  Agency does not mean we always have all the options to choose from but only that we can choose from the available options.

[Silhouette]

Nope he just eliminated one of the options. Agency does not mean we always have all the options to choose from but only that we can choose from the available options.

Another "Ah ha" moment for me. This neatly puts into perspective the answer to a question I've had for many years. Thanks for this post. It's wonderful when a misunderstood concept finally "clicks".

[ERayR]

Another "Ah ha" moment for me. This neatly puts into perspective the answer to a question I've had for many years. Thanks for this post. It's wonderful when a misunderstood concept finally "clicks".

 

I love those Ah Ha moments too. 

[Brian 2.0]

I don't see how. Interfering with the shooter's agency would be to force him to stop his massacre.

Nope he just eliminated one of the options.  Agency does not mean we always have all the options to choose from but only that we can choose from the available options.

 

So how does "agency" answer the problem of evil as some have insinuated on this board?

 

IF God can set up stumbling blocks which takes away an option of an evil choice... say a murder or rape or whatever... then why does God take away the option in some instances and not take away the option in others?

 

Person A says they were blessed because God intervened and placed obstacles in their way to make them late to work... late enough to miss the madman who stormed into work and killed the employees.  Yet God obviously didn't intervene, or not strongly enough, into the victims who were on time to work and died in the massacre.

 

When the massacre is pointed to in the "problem of evil" argument, often people say "agency" or "we chose to come to this fallen world where agency is in effect and bad things happen"  etc. etc.  And that option works if we are talking about a non-intervening God who by choice/necessity/law is not intervening.  BUT... we if we believe Person A in the above, then we believe in an intervening God.   He COULD have made everyone late for work.  He COULD have made the madman get a flat-tire.  But he didn't.

 

I'm saying when people point to agency as an answer to the problem of evil, it's sometimes comes off as a bit of a scapegoat, as if to take responsibility off of God.  Sure, agency is in play in the world, but if we say God is omnipotent then he has the ability to prevent most all "evil acts" from occurring by removing the option in some way.  

 

It still all comes back to God, not agency.  He may have is reasons for not intervening, which may even be incomprehensible to a mortal.  But when a parent is grieving over the abduction, torture, and eventual murder of their young child, the idea that it's "agency" at play still doesn't take away the reality that God COULD have prevented it from happening but did not.

[ERayR]

So how does "agency" answer the problem of evil as some have insinuated on this board?

 

IF God can set up stumbling blocks which takes away an option of an evil choice... say a murder or rape or whatever... then why does God take away the option in some instances and not take away the option in others?

 

Person A says they were blessed because God intervened and placed obstacles in their way to make them late to work... late enough to miss the madman who stormed into work and killed the employees.  Yet God obviously didn't intervene, or not strongly enough, into the victims who were on time to work and died in the massacre.

 

When the massacre is pointed to in the "problem of evil" argument, often people say "agency" or "we chose to come to this fallen world where agency is in effect and bad things happen"  etc. etc.  And that option works if we are talking about a non-intervening God who by choice/necessity/law is not intervening.  BUT... we if we believe Person A in the above, then we believe in an intervening God.   He COULD have made everyone late for work.  He COULD have made the madman get a flat-tire.  But he didn't.

 

I'm saying when people point to agency as an answer to the problem of evil, it's sometimes comes off as a bit of a scapegoat, as if to take responsibility off of God.  Sure, agency is in play in the world, but if we say God is omnipotent then he has the ability to prevent most all "evil acts" from occurring by removing the option in some way.  

 

It still all comes back to God, not agency.  He may have is reasons for not intervening, which may even be incomprehensible to a mortal.  But when a parent is grieving over the abduction, torture, and eventual murder of their young child, the idea that it's "agency" at play still doesn't take away the reality that God COULD have prevented it from happening but did not.

 

You ask a cliche question I will give a cliche answer.  I have no way to know why God does what he does.  I can only suppose he has a good reason.  Another answer would be is that maybe he tried but they were not listening.

 

I also do not know why God told my home teacher that he was need at my home the morning my wife died but he showed up at my door five minutes after she was gone.  He said I don't know why but I am supposed to be here and in other cases that doesn't happen.

[Brian 2.0]

You ask a cliche question I will give a cliche answer.  I have no way to know why God does what he does.  I can only suppose he has a good reason.  Another answer would be is that maybe he tried but they were not listening.

 

I also do not know why God told my home teacher that he was need at my home the morning my wife died but he showed up at my door five minutes after she was gone.  He said I don't know why but I am supposed to be here and in other cases that doesn't happen.

 

Not a cliche answer at all.  It's preferable to what I was talking about.  

 

When trying to discuss details of the problem of evil with some they try to throw out agency as the reason, basically saying "we're in a probationary state where agency acts on agency... duh" as if it's case closed and I'm a fool who doesn't understand the doctrine of agency.  

 

Your answer is more true to the point -- We don't know.  We have to have faith He has good reason.  

 

I have no beef with that answer.

 

It only recently that I've found more people using this "limited God" approach talked about in the OP to answer the problem of evil.  The idea of God that is literally doing EVERYTHING he can to stop evil and suffering but he's not fully omnipotent so he can't simply stop it is interesting to me.

[ERayR]

Not a cliche answer at all.  It's preferable to what I was talking about.  

 

When trying to discuss details of the problem of evil with some they try to throw out agency as the reason, basically saying "we're in a probationary state where agency acts on agency... duh" as if it's case closed and I'm a fool who doesn't understand the doctrine of agency.  

 

Your answer is more true to the point -- We don't know.  We have to have faith He has good reason.  

 

I have no beef with that answer.

 

It only recently that I've found more people using this "limited God" approach talked about in the OP to answer the problem of evil.  The idea of God that is literally doing EVERYTHING he can to stop evil and suffering but he's not fully omnipotent so he can't simply stop it is interesting to me.

 

To place souls in a probationary state and let make choices and reap consequences requires extraordinary control.  Think about your own reactions to your children's choices.  Because of circumstances there are some times we intervene for reasons of our own.  I am confident it is so with God.

[stemelbow]

So how does "agency" answer the problem of evil as some have insinuated on this board?

I don't think it does.

 

IF God can set up stumbling blocks which takes away an option of an evil choice... say a murder or rape or whatever... then why does God take away the option in some instances and not take away the option in others?

I don't think He takes away the options.

 

Person A says they were blessed because God intervened and placed obstacles in their way to make them late to work... late enough to miss the madman who stormed into work and killed the employees.  Yet God obviously didn't intervene, or not strongly enough, into the victims who were on time to work and died in the massacre.

Not so sure God placed obstacles in the way for the one. if He did, then I wouldn't know why.

 

When the massacre is pointed to in the "problem of evil" argument, often people say "agency" or "we chose to come to this fallen world where agency is in effect and bad things happen"  etc. etc.  And that option works if we are talking about a non-intervening God who by choice/necessity/law is not intervening.  BUT... we if we believe Person A in the above, then we believe in an intervening God.   He COULD have made everyone late for work.  He COULD have made the madman get a flat-tire.  But he didn't.

This in my mind doesn't even address the problem of evil.

 

I'm saying when people point to agency as an answer to the problem of evil, it's sometimes comes off as a bit of a scapegoat, as if to take responsibility off of God.  Sure, agency is in play in the world, but if we say God is omnipotent then he has the ability to prevent most all "evil acts" from occurring by removing the option in some way.  

 

It still all comes back to God, not agency.  He may have is reasons for not intervening, which may even be incomprehensible to a mortal.  But when a parent is grieving over the abduction, torture, and eventual murder of their young child, the idea that it's "agency" at play still doesn't take away the reality that God COULD have prevented it from happening but did not.

The problem of evil is most stridently problematic, in my mind, when one stipulates God is the creator of all things absolutely. In my mind, God is not such a creator. His intervening is limited, and necessary for all involved.

[Brian 2.0]

 The problem of evil is most stridently problematic, in my mind, when one stipulates God is the creator of all things absolutely. In my mind, God is not such a creator. His intervening is limited, and necessary for all involved.

 

 

Good post.  

 

Would you say God is not omnipotent, then?

[The Nehor]

Good post.  

 

Would you say God is not omnipotent, then?

 

I would say God can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible.

[Brian 2.0]

I would say God can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible.

 

It would then come down to one's opinion on what is intrinsically impossible.  Given the same scenario I could see two people answering differently:

 

"God didn't intervene because it's impossible for him to do such"

"God chose not to intervene because of a higher purpose or benefit."

[teddyaware]

I don't think it does.

 

I don't think He takes away the options.

 

Not so sure God placed obstacles in the way for the one. if He did, then I wouldn't know why.

 

This in my mind doesn't even address the problem of evil.

 

The problem of evil is most stridently problematic, in my mind, when one stipulates God is the creator of all things absolutely. In my mind, God is not such a creator. His intervening is limited, and necessary for all involved.

 

God did not create evil. In fact, nothing created evil because evil always was. According to 2 Nephi 2, evil is coeval (coeternal) with God and had no beginning and will have no end. Further, we are told existence is built upon a foundational matrix of the eternal principle of opposition in all things, and since existence had no beginning there always was good and there always was evil. According to the Prophet Lehi, good cannot exist or have any substance of meaning without the presence of evil always existing in eternal juxtaposition. Lehi goes on to say nothing could exist unless good and evil are eternal principles that had no beginning and will have no end. Existence cannot exist without there being polarity in all things.

 

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

 12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

 13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

Edited November 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[Robert F. Smith]

I was surprised to see my sentiments echoed by a rabbi in this Washington Post article: the only solution to the "problem of evil" is that God cannot be absolutely "all powerful."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/10/if-god-is-all-powerful-does-that-mean-he-has-forsaken-ebola-ravaged-west-africa/

 

I thought that some of the material from Leibniz and others cited, and their logical extensions, is helpful, as well. 

Yes, rongo.  The Roman Catholic author of that piece snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory in refusing to accept the wisdom of Rabbi Kushner (who went against Jewish dogma in asserting that God is finite).

[Robert F. Smith]

The whole issue is not properly understood. God exists because of his righteousness- his "choice" to be righteous. God himself can just as easily choose to be wicked and evil just like Lucifer. All this shows is that good and evil exist because we have choice and we have law and that part of becoming gods ourselves is learning the difference between good and evil through our own choices.

Correct.

[mfbukowski]

I would say God can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible.

All we need to postulate is that he can "do anything" (whatever that means) that we can know about.

That makes him "omnipotent" for all we can know, which is, after all, all we can know.

[pogi]

We need evil as much as we need good in order to progress and become like God and for God to exist at all.  So, where is the problem exactly in that evil exists? 

[mfbukowski]

I agree with you, but I think I will put it in different terms which are logically equivalent- using perhaps a different perspective. Perhaps it will be instructive, perhaps not. I am sure it will be controversial though.

The whole issue is not properly understood. God exists because of his righteousness- his "choice" to be righteous.

We define "righteousness" by what we believe our Ideal Human,(a real Being) ie: God would "do" when confronted with a choice. Those beliefs about ideal behavior are termed "commandments".
 

All this shows is that good and evil exist because we have choice and we have law and that part of becoming gods ourselves is learning the difference between good and evil through our own choices.

Exactly!

[mfbukowski]

Yes, rongo.  The Roman Catholic author of that piece snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory in refusing to accept the wisdom of Rabbi Kushner (who went against Jewish dogma in asserting that God is finite).

I guess he figured that "victory" was not worth contradicting Catholicism, a choice the the good Rabbi was willing to make.

[mfbukowski]

All we need to postulate is that he can "do anything" (whatever that means) that we can know about.

That makes him "omnipotent" for all we can know, which is, after all, all we can know.

The advantage of this position, in case it is not obvious, is that as far as we can know God is indeed "omnipotent", so we satisfy those who need that belief.  On the other hand, we allow those who want God to be "finite" and therefore non-omnipotent to also satisfy their belief.

 

To me, it doesn't matter- to me it's all just man made descriptions anyway- I am just trying to make peace.

 

Omnipotence is compatible with non-omnipotence just like free will is compatible with determinism.  There is no point in arguing about any of this, and as Mormons we should be beyond this sectarian squabbling.

[mfbukowski]

We need to stop confusing observations with dreaming up explanations for the observations.

 

An observation is "I feel God talks to me in my heart, and tells me that I have choices and am responsible for my actions" 

 

An explanation is some lengthy dissertation on what we think God knows or does not know or if that makes us free or not.  The latter is description defined by linguistic contingencies, the former is the real "truth"- pure experience.  The rest is stories we make up to explain it.

 

That is the whole basis for the perceived conflict between science and religion as well- and that conflict is just bunk.  At its root is the same problem- the difference between observations pure and simple, and their manufactured explanations.

 

ID is not "science" because that explanation is not allowed in the Halls of Scientific Explanations, along with other talk of God.  That is only one example.

 

Everyone makes choices every day- THAT is our pure experience, yet we can talk ourselves out of what we experience because of some silly explanation of what "really" happens

 

At the bottom line, most of the discussions here and everywhere are based on that confusion.

 

There is pure experience, and then there are interpretations of that experience- in all cases, we create confusion by thinking that our explanations- our interpretations are the same as pure experience.

 

Nietzsche was right- "There are no facts, just interpretations".  The only problem there is that he does not discuss pure experience.  Pure experience is "truth" but when we put it into words, all bets are off. 

 

When we put it into words, all we get are interpretations of experience, and THAT is where it all goes wrong.

 

The real fruit of knowledge of good and evil is language.  If we had no words for good and evil, would they "exist"?  

[The Nehor]

It would then come down to one's opinion on what is intrinsically impossible.  Given the same scenario I could see two people answering differently:

 

"God didn't intervene because it's impossible for him to do such"

"God chose not to intervene because of a higher purpose or benefit."

No, I said intrinsically impossible. Things that are self-contradictory. God cannot allow a creature agency and control them. God cannot build a rock so heavy he cannot lift it or microwave a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it. He cannot make a circle simultaneously be a square. In other words things that are inherently self-contradictory.