Posted: Apr 25, 2012 1:10 pm
CookieJon wrote:Hnau von Thulcandra wrote:Well I disagree with your 3a. There are plenty of things which are good and yet not part of God's nature. For example, hope is a virtue for humans, but God who knows the future perfectly is not able to hope.
...which means you must also disagree with 2. He's hardly omnipotent if he is not able to hope.
Unless (like the Christians' "good") you define "omnipotent" as "able to do that which he is able to do", rendering the term meaningless.
Yay, replies! I was afraid that this wasn't going to get any discussion.
For ease of typing, I'm just going to refer to anything that's Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent/Wholly Good as "OOO" or Triple-O. Plus I think it just sounds cooler.
It is very much arguable, probably plausible, that it is logically impossible for a Triple-O being to "hope", and omnipotence is limited to doing things that are only logically possible. But that brings you right around to the problem you've seen - if you define "Good" as "God's Nature", then that precludes any number of things from being "Good" by this definition, including hope.
The real issue you have here is with 3.
I don't want to setup a false dichotomy, but I'm really not seeing how one can escape the argument unless "Goodness" can be defined outside of "God's Nature". I'm totally open to being shown another option to escape the problems shown here, but as it is I think any apologist would have to give up the Moral Argument or they're stuck with their god being logically impossible via the Problem of Evil.