God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

So you're changing the laws of physics too.

You and I certainly can't, but are you so sure about an omnipotent being?Who are we to say such a being cannot accomplish two contradictory, mutually-exclusive, simultaneous tasks? Do you know of any hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings, other than Benjy and Frankie, who cannot do such things? When one can surf on multiple inter-dimensional rifts through the various multiverses and beyond in an instant of time does such a concept as "simultaneous" even exist?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You're re-defining omnipotence.

quote:

---

All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.

​

It is sometimes objected that this aspect of omnipotence involves the contradiction that God cannot do all that He can do; but the argument is sophistical; it is no contradiction to assert that God can realize whatever is possible, but that no number of actualized possibilities exhausts His power. Omnipotence is perfect power, free from all mere potentiality. Hence, although God does not bring into external being all that He is able to accomplish, His power must not be understood as passing through successive stages before its effect is accomplished. The activity of God is simple and eternal, without evolution or change. The transition from possibility to actuality or from act to potentiality, occurs only in creatures. When it is said that God can or could do a thing, the terms are not to be understood in the sense in which they are applied to created causes, but as conveying the idea of a Being possessed of infinite unchangeable power, the range of Whose activity is limited only by His sovereign Will.

---

- St. Thomas Aquinas, OP, The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second and Revised Edition, 1920, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Not at all.

Your own quote from St. Thomas Aquinas seems to agree with me:

quote:

---

... since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible....

---

While it may be, as Aquinas continues, that what is impossible for us is possible for God, it is still not possible for God to do and not do the same thing at the same time.

Unless it is.But in my opinion, the whole idea of what is and is not possible for a god to do misses the point that no god really has any business in deciding the fates of creatures that are supposed to be autonomous and free.It is the god who does get involved at his own whim and to suit his own feelings of right/wrong and impose them on others that is evil, not the god who keeps his nose out of where it does not belong.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

We have to look at it from the human viewpoint: God can't please the rape victim and the rapist at the same time - not to mention the people who think she should be raped and the people who think she shouldn't. I don't think either omnipotence or free will are very useful concepts. They certainly don't mix well.

quote:

---

The transition from possibility to actuality or from act to potentiality, occurs only in creatures. When it is said that God can or could do a thing, the terms are not to be understood in the sense in which they are applied to created causes, but as conveying the idea of a Being possessed of infinite unchangeable power, the range of Whose activity is limited only by His sovereign Will.

---

Unless he wants to.

If that is the twisted moral argument that you have to make, I think it illustrates just how bad the argument is. If God is just, then he wouldn't please the rapist.The problem is that God is capricious. God will destroy an entire population for rape in one instance, and do nothing in the other. The Bible describes God coming to the aid of the rape victim, the person who is ill, and the other miracles. So why do so in some instances, but not others? In the end, our world appears to be the same as one where God does nothing.What it boils down to is the dragon that lives in Sagan's garage. If there is no difference between God existing and not existing, then why say that God exists?

There is no human viewpoint vis-a-vis the (supposed) powers of truly omnipotent gods. Just ask the believers.Aquinas probably truly believed his own views even though we both know he was blowing it out his ass as all priests must but he is one of the foremost theologians in humanity and, not being an expert on this crap, I will defer to Aquinas' opinion on what omnipotence means for his god rather than your more limited view. Since omnipotence is a myth and free will an illusion I will agree with you the two do not play well together.

If you're that desperate to define God as evil, have it your way.

I didn't say anything about God existing. We're talking about a hypothetical God and the nature of "evil".Evil is thoroughly subjective. What's evil to you is not evil to a rapist or to God.

No desperation. His book shows his evil easily enough without our hypotheticals.But, hey, thank you. Now maybe we can agree on something from reality.

No, that is a fine explanation.
It simply means that God does not care. Which is an explanation I offered in the beginning.By God "caring" I mean the basic definition:
-God is involved in our lives (our society, our culture, our feelings, our emotions of the time)
-God wants to help (again, help in the way our society, our culture, our feelings and our emotions of the time would suggest).I agree with you that if God doesn't care, He wouldn't do anything.

You seem to be using 2 different definitions of "evil."On one hand, you say that evil is defined by a society, at the time, however they think evil is.
Then you seem to shift and say that God is not evil... as if using some sort of "universally evil" definition.If evil is defined by the society, and God does something evil as defined by that society... then God is evil as determined by that society.You are correct that this in no way implies that God is somehow universally evil... but the entire concept of "universally evil" does not exist when claiming that evil is as defined by the society of the time. It doesn't mean anything anymore.. the only thing that means anything, then, is how that society defines evil. And, if God is evil according to that society, then God is "evil."